- Marine Warfighting Lab tests the Godzilla of amphibious assault vehicles
- Harry Reid: Birth-control ruling the worst Supreme Court decision in 25 years
- Vet suicides ‘horrible human cost’ of VA dysfunction: lawmaker
- First marijuana customer in Spokane says he was fired
- Hagel: ‘Make no mistake,’ ISIL is an ‘imminent’ threat to U.S.
- Armed militia sets up Texas command center to ‘fight for national sovereignty’
- Coburn calls hiring of embattled background check firm ‘troubling’
- World Cup: It’s raining men in Brazil as women samba with visitors
- Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl captured in photo smiling with Taliban jihadist
- Germany demands ouster of U.S. spy chief
YONK: California’s anti-chemical campaign
Blacklisted compounds reach 800
Question of the Day
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.
There are, of course, circumstances when government must act to protect us against unseen hazards. Blacklisting relatively harmless chemicals like BPA, though, has a different effect: It makes us wonder whether the government is motivated by safety concerns or politics.
As California goes, so goes the nation.
Ryan Yonk, a research fellow with the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif., (independent.org), is assistant professor of political science at Southern Utah University.
TWT Video Picks
By Ted Cruz
Banning speech with a constitutional amendment is playing with fire
Get Breaking Alerts
- GOP: Lerner warned IRS employees to hide information from Congress
- IRS employee suspended for pro-Obama activities
- White House plans for bowling alley upgrades abruptly canceled
- HUSAIN: The fake caliph of 'The Islamic State'
- Va. Democrat reportedly seeks nude shots of Kendall Jones
- HUSAR: Mexicos Pena Nieto passes the immigration bucket
- Harry Reid lambasted by black conservatives after calling Justice Thomas white
- EDITORIAL: Whats Obama hiding at illegal-alien 'refugee' camps?
- ISTOOK: Flying illegals home would be 99.5 percent cheaper than Obamas plan
- Jesse Jackson hits Obama for putting immigrant children first