Government’s report on BPA may be faulty
Just when you thought (maybe) BPA was safe, we find out that the FDA did not include important evidence in its report.
It turns out that the report’s thumbs-up for BPA was based on studies paid for by the plastics industry! It also conveniently ignored information from some independent studies.
The short story is that the FDA said BPA (a chemical used to harden plastic for products like baby bottles) was safe at the levels typically ingested by babies. However, the conclusion may be wrong on a few different levels. For one, they underestimated how much BPA babies take in, especially considering they may get it from several sources, not just bottles. But it also seems that BPA can be harmful at levels 10 times lower than they reported.
The National Toxicology Program, also a government group, said last month that there IS concern about how BPA alters brain and prostate development, as well as behavior in children and fetuses.
Not only that, but a new report just traced a link between exposure to BPA and resistance to chemotherapy treatment.
Currently, it is suggested that plastics #1,2,4, and 5 are safer choices than others (look in the recycling triangle for the number). I don’t like to join a hysteria bandwagon, and like “they” say–we survived despite our parents’ ignorance. But when it comes to things like this, I think it’s better to be safe than sorry. What will it hurt me to buy plastics that are BPA-free?
Read More
Lightningbug78 says...
I completely agree. Better to be on the safe side. Our family decided to go BPA-free before my son was born (in May), and even in the last 6 months, there has been a veritable explosion in BPA-free products. Even the companies that made BPA-free stuff prior to that have focused on making their products that much better. Incidentally, the facts about the flawed report have been floating around for a while. I’m glad someone has brought it into the spotlight. It’s definitely a little fishy…