YONK: California’s anti-chemical campaign

Blacklisted compounds reach 800

Story Topics
Question of the Day

Is it still considered bad form to talk politics during a social gathering?

View results

What happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas. Too bad you can’t say the same for California.

From popular culture to government finance, California has always seemed one step ahead. The Summer of Love was just the beginning.

Since 1986, for example, California has been on a crusade to identify any and every man-made chemical that has been shown in some laboratory to cause cancer, birth defects or reproductive harm. Like other well-meaning government initiatives that backfire on consumers, the official list of suspect chemicals published under the aegis of Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, now stands at about 800.

Most of these, of course, are absolutely safe at the levels to which you and I typically would be exposed. Placing them on “the list,” however, creates doubt and acts in many cases as a de facto ban.

What’s next? The answer is another common compound with a tongue-twisting name that environmental activists want vanquished from the market: bisphenol A.

Though you probably have never heard of BPA, as it’s commonly called, it’s ubiquitous in the marketplace, used in baby bottles, plastic wrap, microwaveable food containers, eyeglass frames, shower-curtain liners, CDs and DVDs, water pipes and in the lining of most canned food products.

The demand for restrictions on the use of BPA began to gain traction in mid-2008, when the Canadian government and European Union started to regulate its use. Eager to join the bandwagon, legislation was proposed in the Senate that year to ban its use in children’s products. The “BPA-Free Kids Act of 2008,” sponsored by Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, didn’t pass.

Those demanding BPA regulation cite studies showing that foods and liquids in containers lined with BPA absorb it. What they don’t tell you is that this “leaching” effect releases only tiny traces of the chemical and that human exposure at these levels is perfectly safe.

A large-scale study by toxicologist Justin Teeguarden, senior research scientist at the federal government’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Wash., confirmed this: BPA exposure levels were too low to impact human health. In fact, he said, the levels to which we are exposed are “a thousand times lower” than the levels shown in animal studies to cause problems.

Even the Food and Drug Administration acknowledged this discrepancy in its most recent assessment of BPA “use in Food Contact Applications.”

Despite this, California appears to be moving forward with its blacklisting. The extended public comment period on BPA’s proposed listing on the Dirty 800 ended March 31. Now the bureaucracy must act amid a continuing chorus of unfounded claims that BPA poses a critical public health threat.

The facts don’t support such claims.

“The ‘BPA-is-harmful’ crowd appears impervious to peer-reviewed studies,” L. Earl Gray, senior reproductive biologist and toxicologist with the Environmental Protection Agency, told Jon Entine, senior research fellow at George Mason University’s Center for Health and Risk Communication. Mr. Gray describes their position as “a religious position,” based on faith, rather than fact and reason. “But as scientists and regulators,” he said, “we have to go where the data take us.”

Rather than seek an outright ban, which is not supported by the scientific evidence, the anti-BPA activists realize they can accomplish the same goal merely by placing BPA on California’s Proposition 65 blacklist.

The best way to ensure consumer safety is to make sure consumers have access to honest and unbiased scientific information.

Story Continues →

View Entire Story
Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus
TWT Video Picks
You Might Also Like
  • Maureen McDonnell looks on as her husband, former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, made a statement on Tuesday after the couple was indicted on corruption charges. (associated press)

    PRUDEN: Where have the big-time grifters gone?

  • This photo taken Jan. 9, 2014,  shows New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie gesturing as he answers a question during a news conference  at the Statehouse in Trenton.  Christie will propose extending the public school calendar and lengthening the school day in a speech he hopes will help him rebound from an apparent political payback scheme orchestrated by key aides. The early front-runner for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination will make a case Tuesday Jan. 14, 2014, that children who spend more time in school graduate better prepared academically, according to excerpts of his State of the State address obtained by The Associated Press. (AP Photo/Mel Evans)

    BRUCE: Bombastic arrogance or humble determination? Chris Christie’s choice

  • ** FILE ** Secretary of State Hillary Rodham testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2013, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the deadly September attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Chris Stevens and three other Americans. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

    PRUDEN: The question to haunt the West

  • Get Breaking Alerts