Cincinnati-based Kroger announced last week that in addition to making sure there is no BPA in the baby products it sells, the store is ridding the chemical from its store brand canned foods and purchasing BPA-free paper for its store receipts.
The inclusion of those respondents would have led to a finding of no association between BPA and serious heart problems.
In contrast, larger studies that met the standards found no risk from BPA, even with exposures hundreds of times higher than most people get, Dekant says.
For now, there is no alternative to BPA that has been so thoroughly tested, and using a less-tested substance could needlessly increase the potential health risk to consumers.
According to the Food and Drug Administration, bisphenol A, or BPA, isn't an approved substance for use in baby bottles and children's sippy cups due to a change in FDA regulations that reflects the fact manufacturers no longer use BPA in the products.
In other words, BPA is no worse than anything else you encounter every day.
Regardless, responded Lakind and Goodman, they claim they consistently found no associations between urinary BPA and heart disease or diabetes across four NHANES datasets.
But as the media continues to report studies claiming a risk from BPA, no matter how flimsy the methodology, and ignoring regulatory studies which contradict these claims, no matter how rigorous the methodology, the incentives for gamesmanship in science have never been greater.
With impeccable timing, the FDA released its new findings that BPA still poses no threat last Friday, just three days before Monday's vote in the California assembly.
No, instead we indict BPA. Rather than go nutso about all the phytoestrogens in infant formula, we blame the liner of the can, despite the fact that the difference in exposure from the two sources is sometimes impossible to calculate because human BPA levels are often too low to measure.
FORBES: Why Do We Fear The Harmless While Irrationally Putting Ourselves In Harm's Way?
The FDA studies on the pharmacokinetics of BPA have gone where no assessment of an environmental chemical has ever gone before in terms of scope and sophistication.
Credit card issuers could no longer lure co-eds with BPA-free water bottles or sleeveless t-shirts and card seekers under 21 needed a parental co-sign.
If one is looking at this from a purely science and health perspective, the minute quantities of BPA found in can liners has no negative impact on human health.
FORBES: Campbell's Big Fat Green BPA Lie -- and the Sustainability Activists that Enabled It
Another problem with this attempt to ban BPA in food applications is that there is no scientific basis for doing so.
FORBES: Regulation By Litigation May Be Hazardous to Your Health
Infants and children, because of their smaller size and stage of development, are particularly at risk from the harmful health effects of BPA. But since BPA is not listed on food or drink labels, we have no way of knowing our daily exposure, or which products to avoid.
Eden Valley Organics now sells beans in BPA-free cans, and Walmart and Toys "R" Us no longer sell baby bottles containing the compound.
There is no evidence for such a difference, and based on the likely mechanisms of action of BPA in the prostate, this seems inherently unlikely.
In the No. 1 corn and soy state of Iowa on Friday, scouts estimated the state's yield at 146 bpa, down 16 percent from the average of 174.7 bpa in the same areas of the state last year.
应用推荐