A brand-new EPA study that was published on October 30th, 2009, is worth noting In this study a controversial chemical is once again identified by independent research experts to be danger-free. Environmental activists and a small number of scientists have long protested that small amounts of BPA ingested through food and drink are the biological equivalent of global warming or akin to giving a baby a contraceptive pill. Activists have charged that risk assessments by the Food and Drug Administration and other agencies have relied exclusively on flawed industry-funded studies to cover up the risk to the public, while "independent" studies have demonstrated these risks.
But regulatory agencies around the world have rejected many of these independent studies, noting that they are either methodologically flawed or irrelevant for the purposes of assessing risks in humans. Multigenerational studies with large samples, high statistical rigor, and strong experimental design have failed to confirm any risk, and these studies have been either independent, or funded by industry but designed and supervised by independent scientists (such as those employed by the European Union).
Now, a second independent study by the Environmental Protection Agency, published in the leading toxicological journal, Toxicological Sciences, has failed to find evidence of the low-dose hypothesis claimed by environmental activists and widely reported in the media.
Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical that serves as an elementary ingredient in the creation of many plastics found in consumer products. As I alluded to above, of late, many in the popular media have attacked BPA, claiming that its unsafe and harmful nature puts those who ingest foods that have been stored in plastic BPA containers at significant risk.
Just over three months ago, I wrote an article for the American Thinker entitled "A Chemical Scare Campaign Is Good Business for Some" in which I called out the behavior of those who frequently accuse BPA. Furthermore, in that piece, I identified that the common denominator amongst those who profit from creating this chemical scare is PR professional David Fenton. ... Until recently, this appeared to be nothing more than a typical attempt by liberals to go after business and manufacturing. But as several bloggers have recently pointed out, there appears to be a more sinister motive. You see, the radical environmental groups who fundraise off of this issue, the trial lawyers who line their pockets with class action lawsuits against BPA manufacturers, and the Democratic politicians who score political points by attacking BPA all have one thing in common: They all share the same PR guru -- David Fenton... of Fenton Communications....
Indeed, these smears against BPA are simply a move by liberal supporters to continue to enhance their own agenda and back their business associates, thereby lending further support to their politicians.
Evidence of this can be found in President Obama's nomination of Dr. David Michaels to lead OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). As I've described previously in a piece I wrote for RedState.com, Michaels is an epidemiologist who frequently speaks out against BPA through popular media outlets such as the Washington Post. The anti-BPA scare-campaign cost consumers untold millions of dollars and untold numbers of jobs. That's not to mention the amount of emotional damage this junk-science inflicted on Americans who were sure they had harmed their baby by giving them the wrong plastic bottle. ... Oh yeah, Michaels' also helped line the pockets of trial lawyers who made money by suing manufacturers of products made with BPA. All of this, despite countless evidence that BPA was safe.
So, are any of the popular media outlets reporting to the world that BPA has once again been tried, tested, and proven safe by health industry experts? No. But then again, we don't have David Fenton managing our PR department so how would they get our message anyways.
Share