FDA Taking Sweet Time on Toxic Plastic Debate
|
Tweet this story! Support our efforts for a sustainable world.
|
|
What you don’t know, won’t kill you. Or at least that’s what the FDA seems to be saying when it comes to toxic plastic.
Bisphenol A (BPA), a highly toxic chemical and plastic additive, “makes plastic more rigid and unbreakable,” according to Mark Schapiro, author of Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What’s at Stake for American Power. This includes those ultra-durable Nalgene water bottles that became so popular in recent years. Their never-break heroicness comes at a huge cost. In fact, Schapiro adds, “BPA has been linked to the development of prostate and breast cancer in adults,” and in regard to the latter, “mimicking estrogen and being carcinogenic.”
According to Elisa Odabashian, Director of West Coast Office and State Campaigns, and Dr. Urvashi Rangan, Director of Technical Policy at the Consumers Union, Congress is pushing for a ban on BPA. But what on earth is taking the FDA so long in taking this toxic chemical off the market? California is central to the fight in getting to the bottom of this.
From Grist.org:
Several government and non-governmental scientific bodies have assessed the safety of BPA, and indicated concerns, while the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not yet. Since 2007, Congress has questioned whether the BPA industry has been unduly influential in FDA’s assessment of scientific studies of BPA. Congress recently introduced legislation to ban BPA in food contact substances and FDA has initiated yet another review of BPA safety-and the hope is that this time, more than a handful of selected studies will be considered.
All of this begs the critical question: why has this product been allowed to remain on the market for so long? The answer points to a far larger systemic problem with chemical regulation in this country, which operates under the principle of proof-of-harm over proof-of-safety, leaving consumers as the ultimate guinea pigs.
Almost a decade ago, Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, was one of the first to test BPA in baby bottles, and to warn consumers about its potential dangers. Today, an array of groups, including consumer, health, environmental, medical and scientific, have urged FDA to remove BPA from food and beverage containers, and at the very least, to protect the most vulnerable consumers-young children and pregnant women.
Several jurisdictions have banned BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups, including Suffolk County, New York, Chicago and Minnesota. Connecticut also recently banned BPA in reusable food and beverage containers, as well as infant formula and baby food cans and jars.
Now California is at the forefront of the fight to protect young children from exposure to BPA. A bill authored by Democratic state Sen. Fran Pavley (who also authored legislation giving California the highest standards in the nation for reducing greenhouse gasses) would essentially ban BPA in products such as baby bottles, sippy cups, infant formula and baby food jars designed for children ages three and younger. The bill recently passed the Senate but faces stiff opposition in the Assembly by the chemical and infant formula industries.
Read the entire article here.
