How lobbyists are spinning weak science to defend BPA (The Atlantic, 9/27/2011)

Facebooktwitterpinterest

The Atlantic has published a must-read article about our BPA in Kids' Canned Food report and the food packaging industry's effort to generate controversy about the formidable body of scientific evidence linking BPA to harm. In particular, industry is pointing to one apparently flawed study to defend its continued use of BPA in food cans:

The chemical industry, NAMPA [the North American Metal Packaging Alliance], and other industry groups have consistently defended the safety of BPA — and lobbied extensively against its regulation. But that such a flawed study would be published and its findings so misrepresented has outraged prominent members of the scientific community. "Its conclusions are preposterous," says Fred vom Saal, professor of biological sciences at the University of Missouri-Columbia whose research on endocrine hormones dates back to the 1970s.

In criticizing the Breast Cancer Fund study, NAMPA also said the levels of BPA found in the kids' canned food tested — an average of 13 to 114 parts per billion — "are well within the safety recommendations of government agencies." But such levels of BPA, which is known to be biologically active at very low levels of exposure, according to vom Saal, are sufficient "to prompt an entire range of effects." (Read complete article.)

Facebooktwitterpinterest

Leave a Comment

Give us a sign that you're human * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.