The War On Science, Industry And BPA

Via The New York Times, in a pseudo-scientific, public relations war funded by liberal interest groups and trial lawyers, abetted by a mostly liberal media, Science, American industry and U.S. consumers appear to be on the verge of losing a costly fight many might not have realized was even being waged.

The costs to American industry and consumers may be incalculable as BPA, or Bisphenol A, used to harden plastics for containers and line metal cans, is at risk of being banned in the U.S., even as Europe, Australia, Japan and other governments insist there is no scientifically documented risk at all.  

Missing in this debate is that it’s not just ‘industry groups’ that think BPA shouldn’t be banned — or just industry-sponsored studies that say it’s safe. Scientists, regulators, politicians in Europe, Australia, and Japan have all rejected the evidence that the chemical is harmful as methodologically flawed, badly conducted, or irrelevant — with some warning that banning it could actually endanger the public.

Now, America's own National Institutes of Health has been forced to admit to funding faulty research, often picked up by popular media to win an ideologically-driven anti-business, anti-science public relations war that appears to have nothing to do with the best interests of American consumers in the end. Yes, these are the government entities to which we want to entrust our health care options in the future, I'm sure.

Now that the National Institutes of Health has acknowledged that it funded a lot of poorly-designed research on BPA — the very research that is touted as evidence that the chemical is deadly — it’s time to ask whether America has been spun by clever marketing rather than clever science.

More details available in the brief NY Times item and a study they link in pdf by STATS.

The claims about the dangers of the chemical bisphenol-A, or BPA , get a skeptical look in a report by a nonpartisan, nonprofit group, STATS.

It's been well argued that millions have since died, primarily from Malaria, due to the unnecessary banning of DDT back in 1972 that resulted from a similar campaign fueled by some of the very same liberal interest groups. Unless government can find a way to base decisions on science uninfluenced by interest groups of any stripe that reach conclusions first, then develop studies to support their agendas, regardless of the truth, the less control we give government over our lives, choices as consumers and especially our health care options, the better.      

Comments

[anon]

Isn't comparing DDT to BPA a bit of apples to oranges, as it is an incontrovertible fact that DDT was every bit as destructive to the enviroment as the environmental lobby said it was, the question is whether the destructiveness of DDT is or should be outweight by its efficacy against malaria, NEVER that DDT didn't 'really' hurt the environment like the tree huggers said it did. In fact, the DDT debate showed pretty clearly that it was the industry that was lying and not the environmentalists.

I've never heard of STATS, so I have some skepticism that they are non biased/.

[WBestPresidentEver]

I read about BPA, & Bisphenol A just a few weeks ago because I am always interested in anything that may cause cancer. I am a cancer survivor (so far) and I also used to wonder about DDT being used years ago but did not realize the banning of it in 1972 was due to a lot of controversy until I read your link about it. Thanks for the link.
It is ashame so many young in underdeveloped countries are dying now of malaria becuase it can't be used anymore.
Maybe that is there way of culling of the population in the world.
I put nothing past this NEW WORLD ORDER BS and all these secret meetings that go on all the time.
Even Gordon Brown not to long ago said the poplulation of the world was too large. Then....came the swine flu. Makes you wonder sometimes why it suddenly appeared. Wonder what ever happened to the investigation about the missing viles of viruses that happened right before the swine flu came to be.
I am not a conspiracy theorist but sometimes you have to wonder.
I do not trust government period, anymore.
That's just me however. People can believe whatever they want. This is still a free country (I think) LOL.

[Rob Crawford]

"In fact, the DDT debate showed pretty clearly that it was the industry that was lying and not the environmentalists."

If so, that may be the last instance of that happening.

[Philip McDaniel]

"...it is an incontrovertible fact that DDT was every bit as destructive to the enviroment [sic] as the environmental lobby said it was...In fact, the DDT debate showed pretty clearly that it was the industry that was lying and not the environmentalists."

Of course, you can back up your assertion can't you, Anon.

[PA]

"it is an incontrovertible fact that DDT was every bit as destructive to the enviroment as the environmental lobby said it was"

At what concentrations?

[anon]

Geeze, all you have to do is read the Wikepedia entry on DDT and it gives the information on DDT's toxicity!

[Rob Crawford]

"Geeze, all you have to do is read the Wikepedia entry on DDT and it gives the information on DDT's toxicity!"

Hmmmm... does Wikipedia also give the LD50 for water?

The "at what concentrations" question, anon, is known as a "rhetorical question". It's intended to make you think about something more deeply than you normally would. You see, lots of things are poisons -- at the right concentrations. You can die from drinking too much water; you can die if the concentration of oxygen is too high; you can die from getting too much vitamin E.

So the essential question remains: was DDT as horrible as the greens made it out to be? Can it be responsibly used? If so, why the crusade against the chemical and not its abuse?

[anon]

It depends on what question it is that is being answered, if the question is 'was DDT as damaging to the enviroment as was claimed' then I think the answer is a resounding yes. If the question is whether DDT is 'so bad' that it shouldn't be used or whether its benefits to humans outweighs the damage it does to the environment, then that is something else entirely.

Me, I would err on the side of the environment since there are other, cheaper and less destructive ways of dealing with malaria.

[Lala]

New York City used to spray whole neighborhoods every summer in the Borough of Queens to get rid of mosquitoes which were bigger than the ones in New Jersey. My nieces and nephews thought it was a lot of fun to follow the truck and get lost in the "fog." They are all in their 50's now and not one has contracted cancer, or malaria.

Remember the other ban - Alar - which almost put the apple business out of business.

And the Love Canal.

And that movie, Erin whatshername. Another lie.

[WBestPresidentEver]

Yeah, Lala, I remember all that stuff. It always depends on what group of folks gets set on going after someone or something and how many backers they can get to side with them and believe them and donate the money to start their BS....
Al Gore comes to mind with his BS global warming stuff.

As far as the new lining in cans I began seeing the change quite afew years ago and I thought that it looked different inside those cans.
Maybe that is how the crap with BPA, or Bisphenol A got started. Someone noticed the diffence as I did and began to investigate and then turned a mountain into a molehill.

Our world has changed for the worst with all these folks screaming daily about something. I personally think they are all a bunch of nut cases with too much time on their hands. They hate their lives and are such miserable people that they want everyone else to miserable, too !

[Dan Riehl]

I remember mosquito trucks - especially at the NJ shore. They were cool!!

Farmers in Podunk, Africa are misapplying the pesticide. Yes, by all mean let's ban it. There was no readily available replacement. In many places they are still pushing nets above anything else, yet millions have diedfrom malaria.

By all means, let's save that damned tree.