Is BPA as harmless as California claims?

Facebooktwitterpinterest

The answer, of course, is no, according to just about everyone except the chemical industry and the metal packaging industry.

Yesterday's decision by a panel of political appointees that there isn't "clear and credible" evidence that bisphenol A (BPA) causes damage to the human reproductive system was baffling. Sarah Janssen, a scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council who testified yesterday, summed it up in a blog post, and the decision was widely reported by the Associated Press.

Over the course of the day, the panel — officially charged with determining whether substances should be added to California's Prop. 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects — listened to details from hundreds of studies suggesting harm, and to hours of testimony from scientists, doctors, breast cancer survivors, parents and advocates of all stripes.


One of those bold testifiers was our own Strong Voice, Nancy Bellen from Santa Rosa, Calif. Nancy spoke of her own experience with breast cancer and her hope that parents would be able to make safe, BPA-free choices under Prop. 65 (the listing triggers a right-to-know labeling requirement for consumers' benefit). Thanks to Nancy and all the Strong Voices and supporters who came out for the hearing!

And, of course, this isn't the last word. We're still advocating for bills in California and in Congress that would reduce our exposure to BPA. NRDC has already filed a petition with the California EPA to reconsider BPA for Prop. 65 listing.

Facebooktwitterpinterest

One thought on “Is BPA as harmless as California claims?

Leave a Comment

Give us a sign that you're human *