“A Debate that Causes Headaches: Rushed Conclusions from Recent Study on BPA,” by BPA Coalition.
A new study from the University of Kansas was published claiming that drinking water from plastic bottles and water coolers containing BPA could cause migraines. It has since been picked up by media such as the British Daily Mail which reported that the study imitated human exposure to BPA in a laboratory where rats were administered BPA once every three days. The results of the study allegedly indicate that rats exposed to BPA became less active, sensitive to loud noise and strong light, were easily startled and demonstrated migraine-like behaviours. Luckily for us, normal human exposure is quite different and these conclusions, as highlighted before, jump the gun. Read more at BPACoalition.org.
“A Debate that Causes Headaches: Rushed Conclusions from Recent Study on BPA,” by BPA Coalition.
“Disregard Toxic Advice on Turkey Day,” by Angela Logomasini.
Toxic chemicals lurk in the “typical” Thanksgiving meal, warns a green activist website. Eat organic, avoid canned food, and you might be okay, according to their advice. Fortunately, there’s no need to buy this line. In fact, the trace levels of man-made chemicals found in these foods warrant no concern and are no different from trace chemicals that appear in food naturally.
The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) illustrates this reality best with their Holiday Dinner Menu, which outlines all the “toxic” chemicals found naturally in food. The point is, at such low levels, both the man-made and naturally occurring chemicals pose little risk. This year ACSH puts the issue in perspective explaining:
Toxicologists have confirmed that food naturally contains a myriad of chemicals traditionally thought of as “poisons.” Potatoes contain solanine, arsenic, and chaconine. Lima beans contain hydrogen cyanide, a classic suicide substance. Carrots contain carototoxin, a nerve poison. And nutmeg, black pepper, and carrots all contain the hallucinogenic compound myristicin. Moreover, all chemicals, whether natural or synthetic, are potential toxicants at high doses but are perfectly safe when consumed in low doses.”
Watch ACSH’s video on this topic:
Nevertheless, green groups continue to demonize man-made chemicals, suggesting that they are somehow different than naturally occurring ones. At the top of the green hit list is the chemical bisphenol A (BPA), which is used to make hard-clear plastics and resins that line food cans. A couple years back, the Breast Cancer Fund issued a report that measured the trace levels of BPA in food. It warned: “An unwelcome visitor may be joining your Thanksgiving feast: bisphenol A. BPA is an estrogenic chemical that lab studies have linked to breast cancer.”
Seriously, if you are worried about chemicals with estrogenic properties, you’d need to avoid many healthy foods, such as beans, nuts, and any soy-based products, which contain naturally occurring hormonally active chemicals. These naturally occurring chemicals are tens of thousands of times more potent than traces of synthetic chemicals in food. And guess what? Even though they are more potent and plentiful than BPA, these chemicals pose little risk as well.
When they hype the risks of BPA, anti-chemical activists never communicate truly useful information about actual BPA risk, which is negligible, according to extensive scientific reviews that numerous government agencies and research bodies around the world have conducted. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration affirmed BPA safety again this past March, stating: “FDA’s current assessment is that BPA is safe at the very low levels that occur in some foods. This assessment is based on review by FDA scientists of hundreds of studies including the latest findings from new studies initiated by the agency.”
The negligible risks of BPA are certainly worth taking given the huge benefit that BPA provides in making long-term safe food storage and distribution possible. Get more information on BPA here.
BPA levels, like so many trace chemicals — man-made and natural — are simply too low to pose much risks. So enjoy your turkey along with canned green beans and cranberry dressing, and don’t worry!
“Can’t Get Pregnant? Blame It On Plastics! Well, Not If Science Matters,” Jon Entine.
If you’re having trouble getting pregnant, plastics may be the culprit—at least that’s what a credulous reader might conclude based on recent news reports and a slew of website stories with headlines like: “New studies link BPA and phthalates to miscarriage and infertility.” But as is often the case when journalists report on complex science issues, the headlines do not align with the facts. A careful reading of the actual studies and the established research history suggest that these substances do not pose any unusual dangers, despite bumbling efforts by the media and even some scientists to spin the findings to scare up publicity. But the misreporting of conflicting data is not just a case of bad journalism. The consequences are far more pernicious, as scare stories end up infecting the public discussion and the result is often bad legislation. Read more on Forbes.com.
“Bumbling BPA Critics Actually Manage to Prove Themselves Wrong. Not Easy,” By American Council on Science and Health.
We at ACSH are rarely surprised by anything we see published. Since it is our job to debunk bad science, we get a steady diet of it. But we got a special dessert dropped in our laps, and this one takes the cake. Although the study in question is from July, it is so jaw-droppingly awful that we decided to include it today. And when you read it, you may want to discontinue your subscription to Scientific American, which according to ACSH’s media director Erik Lief “should really be called Unscientific American. Read more at ACSH.org.
“An Alarmist Vocabulary: Chemical Is ‘Linked To,’ ‘Study Suggests,’ ‘Consistent With,’ by Angela Logomasini
Headlines continue to appear to claiming that a recent study has shown that the chemical bisphenol A increases the risk of miscarriage, which I addressed in a Forbes article last week. There are many problems with this research, such as the fact that it is not available in a published, peer-reviewed format. Check out my piece here for more details. This issue raises a bigger concern about the state of science today, particularly when the research is related to chemical safety. Reliance on hard facts, scientific standards, and cautious conclusions seems to be withering away. Even well-school researchers have become involved in the game of activism and alarmism, using carefully chosen rhetoric to generate headlines and fear based on inconclusive and largely meaningless studies and even unpublished research. Read more at Openmarket.org.
“A Miscarriage Of Science: BPA’s Unproven Pregnancy Risk,” by Angela Logomasini.
The headlines are out: Pregnant woman should fear the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) because a “new study” says it increase the risk of miscarriage. Fortunately, we have lots of good reasons to doubt these headlines. What does the study really say? We don’t completely know since it’s not available in any peer-reviewed publication. All that’s available is an abstract produced for a recent presentation at a conference hosted by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). The abstract does, however, provide enough information to allay fears—despite how the headlines read. Read more on Forbes.com.
“The Public Demonization Of Bisphenol-A: I Smell A Rat,” by Patrick Michaels.
I’ve been following the saga of Bisphenol-A, aka BPA, for over three years now, ever since I used it as a case study in my course “Public Science and Public Policy.” BPA is a current rage as a cause of all things evil: cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease and probably flatulence. BPA in tiny amounts is in a lot of things that we eat that come out of a can. It’s a popular liner that prevents corrosion and extends shelf life, no doubt contributing to some reduction in cases of food poisoning. Read More at Forbes.com.
“BPA Causes Miscarriages (Or So The Headlines Say),” by Steve Hentges.
It was the late astronomer and author Carl Sagan who popularized the phrase “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” and originated the closely related concept of scientific skepticism. In the case discussed here, skeptics we should be. Last week we saw a flurry of media articles with headlines suggesting that exposure to the common chemical bisphenol A (BPA) increases the risk of miscarriage. Considering how much research has been conducted on BPA already, in particular extensive research on laboratory animals that examined the potential for BPA to cause any effect on reproduction, that’s a rather extraordinary claim that has not been corroborated or replicated. Read more at Science 2.0.
“Another Unnecessary BPA Scare for Expectant Moms,” by American Council on Science and Health.
If you thought you’d seen all the putative risks to health from the chemical bisphenol-A (BPA), think again. It’s been one of the most frequently cited supposedly dangerous chemicals in fear-mongers’ armamentaria. Their drumbeat of alarmism persists, although study after study has failed to find a valid link between BPA and dangers to human health. In fact, the FDA (among numerous scientific and regulatory bodies worldwide) has studied it and determined that its use in food cans and other containers is not only safe, but provides an important public-health benefit against food spoilage and contamination. Read more at ACSH.org.
“Is BPA linked with increased risk of miscarriage?” by Sense About Science.
On 14th October 2013 the Independent, Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail reported a study which linked the chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) with increased risk of miscarriage, and advised pregnant women to avoid tinned foods. Read more at Sense About Science.
“Enviro Scare Tactics Undermine Breast Cancer Awareness Month,” by Angela Logomasini.
October is “breast cancer awareness month” thanks to a collaborative campaign arranged by public and private groups united in the mission to fight breast cancer. Their educational efforts can save lives by promoting early detection and healthy lifestyle choices. Yet environmental activists and media are using this campaign as an excuse to scare women about chemicals, and unintentionally, divert their attention from truly useful information, such as the importance of regular breast exams and a healthy diet. Read the full article on OpenMarket.org.
“Women Should Worry about Shoddy Reporting, Not Chemicals,” Julie Gunlock.
Earlier this week, USA Today ran a story by reporter Liz Szabo who warned women “A growing number of health advocates are raising concerns about possible links between the estrogen-like chemical BPA and breast cancer.” Notice Liz says “health advocates” are concerned, not health professionals, scientists, toxicologists, breast cancer researchers, or oncologists. That’s right; Liz doesn’t actually talk to the experts in the fields of toxicology and disease but relies on one of the country’s best-known purveyors of junk science. Read the full article on IWF’s Inkwell Blog.
“USA Today Spins Breast Cancer Scare Out Of Retracted Study Claim As New EPA Study Dismisses Risk,” by Trevor Butterworth.
USA Today reporter Liz Szabo has long rung the alarm bells on bisphenol A (BPA), devoting an entire full page article to promoting the repeatedly discredited claims of University of Missouri researcher Frederick vom Saal. Now, she has turned to vom Saal’s longtime collaborator, University of Tufts researcher Ana Soto to advance the claim BPA increased the risk of mammary cancers in rats and therefore might pose a risk to humans. The rub – as I reported recently here on Forbes – is that Soto and her co-authors were forced to walk back this claim by the journal that published the study because the statistical data showed no such risk. Read the full article at Forbes.com.
“Environmental Group Tries to Save Face, but Falls on It,” by American Council on Science and Health.
We at ACSH have written countless pieces on the absolute garbage science surrounding BPA—a chemical that has been in use for more than 50 years, and is used in the manufacturing process of various plastics. So, it is only natural that we give a huge shout-out to Trevor Butterworth, a journalist and master junk science (especially statistics) debunker, who has an impressive pedigree of editorial and media exposure. Read the full article and watch the video on ASCH.org.
“The EU, US Approaches to Endocrine Disruptors Have Been Appropriate Until Now,” by Jeff Stier.
When it comes to food safety, the European Union and the United States have some of the most effective scientific and regulatory programs in the world. So it came as a surprise when France flouted the studies and assurances of EU and US food safety regulators and sought to ban the use of Bisphenol A (BPA) in any food contact item starting in 2015. Read the full article on Euractiv.
“Taxpayer-Funded Journal Walks Back BPA Cancer Claim After Statistical Meltdown,” by Trevor Butterworth.
First, bisphenol A – a chemical widely used in food packaging for safety reasons – caused breast cancer in rats at “human relevant” levels, according to a study published in the taxpayer funded scientific journal, Environmental Health Perspectives. Now, according to the same study, it doesn’t. After Forbes noted that the statistical data clearly showed BPA had no effects and did not cause cancer – a judgment supported by one of the country’s top statisticians – the journal forced the authors, all researchers at Tufts University, to walk back their claim for publication in print. Read the full article at Forbes.com.
“Pass the Microphone to Science: The Truth Behind BPA and Breast Cancer,” By the BPA Coalition.
Earlier this week, the US-based Breast Cancer Fund (BCF) published a report on BPA exposure during pregnancy. The report is described as a “comprehensive review of the scientific literature” despite its selective use of only older studies that support BCF’s conclusion that BPA “disrupts fetal development and sets the stage for later-life diseases, including breast cancer”. The report also conspicuously avoids mention of some very comprehensive toxicity studies that show no link between BPA and breast cancer. Read the full story at BPA-Coalition.org.
“ACSH Advisor Nails It: Bad Studies About BPA,” American Council on Science and Health.
Dr. Geoffrey Kabat, in his blog on Forbes.com, elegantly reinforces a core ACSH message: That poor science is the basis for many of the scares promulgated by various activist groups. Dr. Kabat, a cancer epidemiologist at the Albert Einstein School of Medicine, has a history of debunking phony cancer scares, as he did in his recent book, Hyping Health Risks (Columbia University Press, 2008). Read the full article at ACSH.org.
“What Do We Really Know About BPA And Fertility?” By Steve Hentges.
Last week, a study published in the journal Human Reproduction reported that bisphenol-A (BPA), a compound widely used to make polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins, altered maturation of human oocytes in vitro. Specifically, at high concentrations of BPA, oocyte maturation decreased while the incidence of oocyte degeneration increased. In an accompanying press release, the authors suggested that BPA “may cause a significant disruption to the fundamentals of the human reproductive process and may play a role in human infertility.” Read the full article on Science 2.0.
“Four Foods You Should Probably Eat,” by American Council on Science and Health.
CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta interviewed David Jack, an editor from Men’s Health about five foods one should supposedly never eat. And the ridiculous claims made by Jack were soaked right up by Gupta. James Cooper sums up the poor science behind each claim made by “nutrition expert” Jack in an on-point editorial in the Examiner entitled “Sanjay Gupta bats 1 in 5 on foods you should never eat.” The five foods were strawberries, white chocolate, sprouts, canned tomatoes and swordfish. Only one of those five, sprouts, actually pose a health threat. Raw sprouts have a higher likelihood of being contaminated by salmonella or E-coli, according to the FDA and EFSA, than other pre-packaged leafy veggies. Here’s a kicker though – organic sprouts are just as likely to be contaminated as non-organic sprouts. Read the full story on ACSH’s website.
“How Abysmal Scientific Research Is Used To Scare America’s Parents,” by Geoffrey Kabat.
We have become accustomed to a steady barrage of reports of hazards lurking in our environment that MAY pose a threat our health and that of our children. These include, among others, low-level radiation exposure from nuclear power plants and nuclear waste; possible water contamination from hydraulic fracturing; and exposure to a wide range of chemicals, including pesticides and industrial pollutants, in food, water, air, and consumer products. Read the full article on Forbes.com.
“California Judge Rules on the Side of Sound Science – No Warning Labels Required,” by American Council on Science and Health.
In the culmination of a five-week trial, California’s Judge Brick ruled that health warnings would not be necessary on various fruit and vegetable products, 100% juices and baby foods, from companies including Del Monte, Dole, Gerber, Hain-Çelestial, J.M. Smucker, Seneca Foods and Welch’s. Read the full story on the American Council on Science and Health’s website.
“BPA And Breast Cancer: When Academics Spin Statistics,” by Trevor Butterworth.
A new study, funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and published in a journal the institute subsidizes – Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) – raises an alarm. This is not, in itself, unusual; EHP is a repository of alarming claims about the environment; but what makes this study different – and alarming in its own terms – is not the claim that “human relevant” exposure to BPA causes breast cancer in rodents (as declared in the title of the paper: Perinatally Administered Bisphenol A Acts as a Mammary Gland Carcinogen in Rats), it’s that when you look at the statistical data there is no meaningful relationship between BPA and cancer whatsoever. The data presented are completely at odds with the claims made by the researchers. Read the full article on Forbes.com.
“An Alarming Call for BPA Research Funding,” by Angela Logomasini.
The headlines are out. The chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) is now “linked to infertility.” How do we know that? Researchers exposed immature eggs left over from fertility treatments to high levels of BPA in the lab. The result, notes The Boston Globe, was: “Only 35 percent of eggs exposed to the lowest levels of BPA had a normal number and configuration of chromosomes after they fully matured compared with 71 percent of those in a control group of eggs that weren’t exposed to BPA.” Read the full post at IWF’s Inkwell Blog.
“The BuzzFeed-ification of Science Reporting,” by Lisa De Pasquale.
For years I’ve been writing about how science reporting has devolved into hysteria and misinformation disguised as public service. TV reports lead with scare tactics like “Stay tuned for the killer in your kitchen cabinet!” with little regard to actual scientific evidence. It’s gotten so ridiculous that even a TV provider makes fun of them in their commercial. Soon we’ll be seeing reports on Sharknado preparation. Regarding the latest boogeyman, BPA, media reporting is actually in opposition to science, but the misinformation continues. Read the full article on Breitbart.com.
“European Descent into Dark Age Ignorance Continues Apace,” by American Council on Science and Health.
When the EU adopted the anti-science “precautionary principle” as its guiding paradigm a decade or more ago, we don’t think anyone (except perhaps its anti-progress advocates) had any idea how low the regulatory process would stoop in service of its ideology. This misguided concept asserts that any process or substance which has not been “proven safe” should be restricted or banned out of an excess of precaution, until such time as such proof can be obtained. The fact that “proving a negative” is impossible and unscientific is not taken into account, nor is the fact that if the principle is stringently applied, essentially all progress must come to a screeching halt. Read the full article and view the video on the American Council on Science and Health website.
“FDA Bans BPA in Already-BPA-Free Uses,” by Gayle S. Putrich.
The Food and Drug Administration will no longer permit the use of bisphenol A in packaging for baby formula. The controversial plastic feedstock was banned from baby bottles and cups last year. In issuing the new ban, however, FDA said it still considers BPA to be safe for packaging, but took its action because manufacturers have already abandoned its use in baby formula packaging. The plastics and chemical industry also said the move had more to do with market forces than chemical safety. Read the full article in Plastics News.
“Scientists Warn of Dangers of ‘Precautionary Science,’” by Angela Logomasini.
Eighteen scientists recently weighed in on the unscientific and dangerous nature of the so-called “precautionary principle” in the July issue of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology. The article follows on the heels of a substantially similar letter to the EU president’s Chief Scientific Adviser that dozens of scientists signed in protest of the European Union’s draft regulation on endocrine active chemicals. Read the full article on OpenMarket.org.
“Canada: More Junk Science? The Anti-BPA Crusade Is Back,” by Ronald L. Doering.
The 25-year controversy involving BPA in food packaging won’t go away. It continues to hang ominously like a black cloud over the food industry….Over the years Health Canada (HC) conducted periodic reviews of BPA to determine whether dietary exposure to it could pose a health risk to consumers. … HC’s Food Directorate has concluded again unequivocally that the current dietary exposure to B… HC has made a real effort to make the science available to the lay public and to try to interpret it in ways that the ordinary consumer can understand. HC’s study of BPA levels in canned drinks, for example, notes that a person would have to consume 940 canned drinks in one day to reach the tolerable daily intake. Still, the issue is raging back … Read the full article on Mondaq.com.
“BPA Replacement Faces Same Attacks as BPA,” by Kenneth Artz.
As anti-chemical activists attempt to ban the safe but controversial chemical Bisphenol A from plastic products, a new study claims the most viable replacement chemical presents greater human health concerns than the exhaustively tested Bisphenol A. Read the full article in Climate and Environment News.
“Why BPA (And Other Chemicals) Don’t Belong On Proposition 65,” by Angela Logomasini.
If you want to have fun in California’s Disneyland, avoid reading the warning signs saying that products used in the park may give you cancer and reproductive problems! They’re not just a buzz kill, they are plain dumb and misinformed. But it’s state law that they be there. You can find them in Starbucks and many other places throughout the state too. Read the full article on OpenMarket.org.
“BPA Delisted: Not ‘Toxic,’” Angela Logomasini
On April 11, California regulators placed the chemical Bisphenol A on its list of “toxic” substances under its Proposition 65 law. BPA has been used safely for more than 60 years to make hard, clear plastics and resins that line metal food containers to prevent development of dangerous pathogens. Dr. Gilbert Ross explains … Read the full article on IWF’s Inkwell blog.
“BPA on Prop 65 list: Now You See it, Now You Don’t, Thankfully,” By Gil Ross.
After the politically-motivated listing of the plastic hardener Bisphenol-A (BPA) was at last squeezed onto California’s nefarious Proposition 65 list of allegedly toxic chemicals, a local Sacramento judge kicked it off, correctly stating that the chemical’s listing flew in the face of scientific and regulatory evidence. A division of California’s environmental agency finally figured out a way to list BPA, a poster-child for “toxic chemicals” and “endocrine disrupters” of the radical environmental activists. Read the full article on ACSH Dispatch.
“National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Champions Shoddy Journalism on Endocrine Active Chemicals,” By Jon Entine.
As Jon Entine of the Genetic Literacy Project reports, the NRDC is not exactly known for scientific nuance. So, there was little surprise when blogger Mae Wu took to the cyberwaves recently to plug an NBC Dateline story promoting the alleged dangers of “endocrine disrupting” chemicals.According to Wu, we should all be shocked—yes shocked—that an NBC producer and her family found trace chemicals in their urine—microscopic amounts of BPA, triclosan and phthalates—all of which are approved and not harmful as commonly used, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Read the full article on Forbes.com.
“Are Concerns About BPA Overblown?” By Chris Kresser.
By now I’m sure most of you have heard claims that bisphenol A (BPA) is a harmful chemical that should be avoided as much as possible. Perhaps you even read that on this blog. Researchers, clinicians, environmental groups and the media have all sounded the alarm on BPA, pointing to a large body of animal evidence which suggests that it has estrogenic effects (i.e. increases estrogen activity) which in turn cause numerous health problems, ranging from obesity to infertility. But recent evidence in humans (and animals) has led me to reconsider my original position on BPA. Read the full article on Chris Kresser’s blog.
“Let’s Preserve our Sanity when it Comes to Canned Food” by Joe Schwarcz.
It may not be quite on a par with the Manhattan Project or with the challenge of beating the Soviets to the moon, but the race to find a substitute for the lacquer used to line food cans is heating up. The canning industry is frantically trying to find a replacement for the epoxy resin currently being used because of concerns that bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical that has been vilified as an “endocrine disruptor,” might be leaching into the contents. BPA is combined with other components to form a polymer that keeps the metal from reacting with the food. Once the BPA has been incorporated into the polymer, it no longer has any hormonal effects. But there are always traces of unreacted BPA left over that can indeed leach out. Read the full article in the Montreal Gazette.
“Another Chemical Misadventure,” by American Council on Science and Health.
Yesterday’s Dispatch took note of the new momentum (or lack thereof) for “reform” of the chemical law known as TSCA, which if enacted would needlessly tighten already protective regulations about chemical safety. Now we learn that, in the same spirit of hyper-precaution based on nothing other than political agenda, the powers-that-be in the high levels of California Health (actually the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, OEHHA) have decided after lengthy debate to put bisphenol-A (BPA) on their Prop 65 list. Read the full article in ACSH Dispatch.
“BPA Bottles Harm Babies? Only If You Batter Them With One, Says Top British Scientist,” By Trevor Butterworth.
After stepping down as chief scientific advisor to the British government on April 1, Sir John Beddington Sir John Beddington exhaled a long list of real and nonsense risks that politicians should do more to fight for and against at a valedictory discussion held at the UK’s Science Media Centre. Of particular interest to readers of this column are his comments on the failure of politicians – and particularly the European Union – to grasp the difference between a hazard and a risk when crafting policy. A hazard is something that can cause harm; a risk is the probability that a hazard will cause harm. Read the full article on Forbes.com.
“A Tipping Point on BPA?” Julie Gunlock
Over on Forbes, Trevor Butterworth examines whether we’re starting to see a tipping point in the controversy over the chemical bisphenol-A, better known as BPA (which I’ve written about previously here, here, and here). Butterworth suggests we might be seeing something resembling comity emerging from the two camps–the regulatory agencies around the world who say the evidence does not show a risk to humans and the anti-chemical and environmental activists who claim chemicals used in everyday products and food packaging is dangerous. read the full article on IWF’s Inkwell blog.
“Leading Environmental Group Scientist Praises FDA’s Ground-Breaking Research On BPA: A Tipping Point In The Controversy?” by Trevor Butterworth.
A trio of scientists from the Food and Drug Administration trooped up to the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Boston in February to talk about the work the agency has been doing in conjunction with the National Toxicology Program on bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical used in a huge range of applications from food safety linings to cash register receipts and medical equipment. The FDA scientists were ready to be attacked: while regulatory agencies around the world keep insisting that the evidence does not show a risk to humans, environmental activists – backed by a handful of academic scientists – claim there is; and the debate has been intense and often unedifying. Read the full article on Forbes.com.
“Relax – Food Chemicals can’t Hurt You,” Joe Schwarcz
I don’t think Einstein had chemical anxiety or the number of chemicals in our urine in mind when he famously stated that “not everything that counts can be measured and not everything that can be measured counts.” But I think the quote has great relevance given that scarcely a day goes by without some concerned group clamouring about our exposure to “untested” chemicals and lamenting the “fact” that we have become a nation of “unwitting guinea pigs.” Read the full article in the Montreal Gazette.
“The Spin Does not Stop Here,” by Paul Alexander
Both the right and the left complain about media bias, when news organizations favor one political ideology over another. But can pure science be subjected to media bias? These days, a debate is raging that could have a profound effect on business, especially food production manufacturing. It centers on a chemical named Bisphenol A, or BPA. Read the full article on the Daily Caller.
“How Junk Science Distorts What We Read, And The Way We’re Governed,” by By Kerri Tolockzko.
There is an enormous difference between political activism and medical science. Standing between should be media investigating instead of just taking notes, and physicians reviewing studies with an objective eye for methodology and intent, not simply taking a researcher’s word for it. Read the full article on Forbes.com.
“Stroking Chemophobia,” by Keith Kloor
In recent years, people have become increasingly concerned about unwanted substances lurking in their furniture and food. These are industrial chemicals we are exposed to every day and that have been found to accumulate in our bodies, “endangering our health in ways we have yet to understand,” CNN asserted in 2007. Read the full article at Discover Magazine.
“Maybe the Worst Paper Ever?,” By Josh Bloom.
A paper (BPA.pdf) published in the March issue of The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology about the association between bisphenol A (BPA) and childhood asthma is nothing short of mind-boggling. Possibly enough so to create a new acronym of data interpretation– GIMBIO–garbage in, mind-blowing idiocy out. Read the full article in Medical Progress Today.
“Experts Criticise Study Linking Chemical BPA with Baby Brain Problems,” by Sunanda Creagh.
A new study that found the common plastic ingredient bisphenol A (BPA) may harm a baby’s brain development in-utero has been described as ‘misleading’ and ‘not relevant’ by Australian experts. Read the full article on The Conversation.
“Anti BPA Crusade Discrediting Science And Environmental Health, Says Leading, Independent Expert,” By Trevor Butterworth.
Professor Richard Sharpe is a leading expert on male reproductive health, directing a research team at the UK’s Medical Research Council (MRC) Centre for Reproductive Health at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. The MRC, which is celebrating its centenary this year, is one of the world’s oldest medical research institutes, publicly funded and wholly independent of government. Among the discoveries by scientists working under its aegis are penicillin and the structure of DNA. Sharpe’s focus on reproductive problems has put him at the forefront of research into phthalates, a family of chemicals that make plastic flexible, and, more generally, endocrinology, endocrine disruption (how trace exposures to environmental chemicals may adversely effect hormonal function), and the impact of lifestyle effects (such as diet) and other health issues (such as obesity). Read the full article on Forbes.com.
“WSJ: No Ill Effect Found in Human BPA Exposure,” by Joe Bast.
Bisphenol A, known as BPA, has been the target of environmentalist concern for many years. But just like DDT, atrazine, and even dioxin, this much-studied chemical has never been found to cause any harm. Read the full article at Somewhat Reasonable.
“Bisphenol A Exposure in Humans May Be Too Low to Cause Problems by Mimicking Estrogen,” by Science Daily.
Feb. 15, 2013 — A controversial component of plastic bottles and canned food linings that have helped make the world’s food supply safer has recently come under attack: bisphenol A. Widely known as BPA, it has the potential to mimic the sex hormone estrogen if blood and tissue levels are high enough. Now, an analysis of almost 150 BPA exposure studies shows that in the general population, people’s exposure may be many times too low for BPA to effectively mimic estrogen in the human body. Read the full story on Science Daily.
“Yet More Evidence that BPA is Safe,” by Julie Gunlock.
The chem-nannies have been very effective in scaring women (particularly moms) about BPA—a chemical used in a variety of everyday items from eyeglasses to plastic food containers to water bottles. Today, the chemical is banned in all baby bottles and other baby products (only because industry requested an across-the-board ban, not because BPA was found to be toxic) and attempts are being made nationwide to ban the chemical entirely. Read the full article on IWF’s Inkwell blog.
“Prevention Magazine: Preventing Informed Health Choices,” by Angela Logomasini.
It’s growing increasingly difficult to find reliable health advice. In the past, I thought Prevention magazine was a good source, but they seem to have fallen prey to dangerous junk science and selective reporting. Consider just a few examples of their questionable claims: Read the full article on IWF’s Inkwell blog.
“Suffolk County, NY Bans BPA in Cash Register Receipts,” by Alyssa Carducci.
Suffolk County, New York became the first government entity in the nation to ban Bisphenol-A from cash register receipts. The decision by the Suffolk County Legislature defies the findings of government health and science bodies around the world. Read the full article in Environment & Climate News.
“Quack Alert: Dr. Oz on Bisphenol A,” by Angela Logomasini.
Television personalities that advise us on personal health—mental or physical—have dominated daytime television for some time now. It’s great when these shows offer helpful, positive advice. So why then do they have to ruin it by getting political and spouting junk or incomplete science? Dr. Oz is the perfect example. Read the full story on IWF’s Inkwell Blog.
“Dr. Oz Promotes False BPA Claims, Sarah Bowman.”
I’m a mom, so I watch Dr. Oz, like many mothers do. As a concerned consumer, I always want what’s best for my boys. When I saw Dr. Oz promoting a segment on Wednesday titled, “The Chemicals You’re Feeding to Your Kids,” of course I tuned in. Dr. Oz had an “expert” from the Environmental Working Group on his show. She cited a Harvard study where the test subjects ate one can of soup per day, which “increased their BPA output by 1,000 percent.” She also claimed that BPA was found in umbilical cords and that the chemical “leads to higher obesity, lower birth rate and lower test scores for children.” Read the full article on Yahoo! Voices.
“Scientists Worldwide: BPA is Safe; CAL-EPA and NRDC: No, It’s Not,” by American Council on Science and Health.
Were we surprised or even disappointed that the California EPA just ruled that the plastic hardener bisphenol-A (BPA) would be subject to warning labels according to their Prop 65 law, or that the Natural Resources Defense Council would be jumping with joy over it? Not really — given the chemophobia of both of those groups, the surprise is that it took Cal-EPA this long; and that the NRDC is so happy about it is as surprising as the sun rising in the east. Read the full article in ACSH Dispatch.
“Greens Complain About BPA-Free Products They Helped Spur,” by Angela Logomasini
Anti-chemical environmental activists rarely consider the consequences of their policies. They demonize chemicals that have been used safely for decades and advance chemical bans based on weak science without considering whether the replacement products will be any safer. Read the full article on OpenMarket.org.
“Problematic Green Advice On Reusable Bottles,” by Angela Logomasini
Environmental activists launched a campaign several years ago to demonize and promote bans on bottled water, suggesting that people find more “energy efficient” and “environmentally sound” alternatives, including reusable plastic or metal water bottles. Some even recommended the dangerously breakable reusable glass bottle! CEI pointed out why the greens’ advice was not only unnecessary but also carried drawbacks, including the fact that reusable alternatives are not only inconvenient, they can become breeding grounds for bacteria. Read the full story on OpenMarket.org.
“Dumb And Dumber BPA ‘Science’” by Angela Logomasini
Rationalizations to support claims that the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) poses a real and serious health threat have gone from dumb to dumber! Even reputable researchers make their case by regularly citing one inconclusive study to suggest another inconclusive study is meaningful. But science doesn’t work that way. Read the full article on OpenMarket.org.
“Selling Scary Stories on Chemicals,” by Julie Gunlock
Alarmists have it easy. If they want to spread scary stories and outright lies, they have a more-than-willing press to help them do just that. Take this article in yesterday’s Philadelphia Inquirer’s Health section entitled: “The EPA’s most worrisome toxins.” Read the full article on the IWF Inkwell Blog.
The Independent Women’s Forum’s Senior Fellow, Julie Gunlock takes on hype related to Bisphenol A and chemicals in general on FOX Business Network’s “Stossel.” Gunlock outlines why smart moms like her need not fall for the false claims and alarmism related to trace chemicals in consumer products. Watch it now.
“More Nonsense About BPA,” by American Council on Science and Health.
Sometimes the latest junk-science news makes us want to bang our heads against the wall. New York’s Suffolk County has just passed the “Safer Sales Slip Act,” banning the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in thermal cash register slips. Fox 5 News in New York did interview ACSH’s Dr. Gilbert Ross about the ban — for a few moments, we guess to “balance” Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone’s claims that BPA is an “endocrine disruptor” that is linked to everything from breast cancer to infertility to heart disease (Although “balance” may be an inaccurate description, since Dr. Ross was quoted for about 20 seconds, compared to the minute-plus given to Bellone). Read the full article in ACSH Dispatch.
“Mice Study Questions BPA-Obesity Link,” by Angela Logomasini
Science is a long-term process that only brings meaning when numerous, scientifically robust studies produce consistent results. But when it comes to politically loaded issues — such as chemical safety — a single study with a “weak association” and a small pool of subjects can capture headlines ad nauseam, creating the impression that consumers face a looming public health crisis where none really exists. Read the full article on OpenMarket.org.
“Top Ten Chemical Scares of 2012,” by Angela Logomasini
This past year, there must have been thousands of green-group-inspired news stories hyping risks regarding numerous chemicals. Regulators too have engaged in efforts to demonize various products unfairly, placing them on “concern” lists and demanding that companies expend enormous amounts of money to study, test, and re-study chemicals that have been safely used for decades. Below is my top-ten list of 2012 green alarms along with links to stories that debunk the junk claims. Read the full article on the IWF’s Inkwell blog.
“BPA Resin Replacements May be More Harmful,” By Angela Logomasini
As the year winds down, it’s a good time to look back at what was one of the biggest alarm stories of the year: the alleged health impact of the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA). Were the claims true, and what might we expect to happen in 2013? Read the full story in The Hill Congress Blog.
“In Reversal, Bedrock Studies Linking Bisphenol A (BPA) to Heart Disease Challenged,” by Jon Entine.
Studies supposedly linking the plastic additive to diabetes, heart disease and coronary artery disease have been called a “bombshell” by anti-BPA NGOs and many journalists. Now those conclusions, and a central contention of campaigners, is in doubt. The most explosive claim of anti-BPA campaigners—that the plastic additive BPA causes an array of heart-related diseases—is in question, according to a peer reviewed paper on the science website PLOS One. Read the full article on Forbes.com.
“Researchers Repudiate BPA Junk Science,” by Angela Logomasini
The chemical bisphenol A (BPA) — which is used to make hard, clear plastics and resins that line food containers — regularly appears in news headlines claiming the substance causes everything from heart disease to obesity. But a new study on the topic shows that much of this “research” is little more than junk science. Many of the alarming BPA studies suffer from a common flaw: they rely on National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data. Read the full article on OpenMarket.org.
“For cynical manipulation of science, NRDC never disappoints,” by American Council on Science and Health.
Last week, the respected scientific journal Nature published a superb editorial castigating the Breast Cancer Coalition, a nonprofit ostensibly devoted to reducing the toll of breast cancer. The editorial pointed out that the goal put forward by the BCC, to “cure breast cancer by 2020” was irresponsible, given the complexity of cancer in general and breast cancer specifically. Read the full article in ACSH Dispatch.
“Plastics Chemists: Don’t Be Ashamed,” by Enrico Uva
There’s irony in having small bits of floatable plastic debris in the Pacific, even if the trash, although worrisome, doesn’t look like anything most of the public imagines. Millions of years ago, many of the hydrogen and carbon atoms within these man-made polymers were part of marine life. Death, deposition and pressure simplified the organic molecules of the dead. Then a species that indirectly evolved from these oceanic ancestors accidentally stumbled upon a crude liquid. Eventually they learned to use not only its energy content but its building blocks. Some of these were linked into molecular chains that could be molded into any shape. But these chains proved to be resistant to the usual degradative action of bacteria and fungi. Read the full article on Science 2.0.
“BPA is Safe…Say Scientists for the Billionth Time; Media Ignores,” Julie Gunlock
Look, folks get it. The mainstream media simply chooses to ignore certain stories (read: Benghazi). It’s a reality and, in general, I don’t spend too much time worrying about it. But when it comes to my health, my children’s health and my bottom line, I tend to get a little testy that the mainstream media is selecting to ignore certain very important health-related stories. Read the full article on the IWF Blog.
“Bisphenol A (BPA) Found Not Harmful, Yet Again — So Why Did So Many Reporters and NGOs Botch Coverage, Yet Again?,” by Jon Entine.
One of the most disturbing trends in science reporting is what The New York Times’ Andrew Revkin calls “single-study syndrome”— the increasing tendency of reporters and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to trumpet research that supports a pre-determined perspective, no matter how tenuous—or dubious—a study might be. Read the full article on Forbes.com.
“Scare Tactics Distract from Finding a Cure,”by Carrie Lukas.
With Halloween this week, one might assume that orange and black are the hands-down winners for favorite marketing décor. Yet pumpkins and witches hats have a formidable challenger in the pink ribbons signifying breast cancer awareness month, which currently adorn everything from grocery shelves to athletes’ uniforms. Read the full story on Townhall.
“The Controversy Around BPA: Bad Reporting On Bad Science,” by Henry Miller.
Americans are constantly bombarded by the “science of things that aren’t so,” a phrase coined by Nobel Prize-winning chemist Irving Langmuir. Whether it is studies examining chemicals, sugary drinks or any number of other ordinary things, the number and frequency of news reports about relatively benign activities and substances that appear under alarmist headlines are rapidly increasing. Read the full article on Forbes.com.
“Medical Junk Science: Canned Veggies May Make Kids Fat,” by Angela Logomasini
Can feeding your child canned soup and vegetables make make her fat? According to study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), it just might — but only if your child is white. That’s the latest junk science “finding” from yet another study designed to condemn the chemical bisphenol A (BPA). Despite obvious flaws with the study and the implausibility of its findings, newspapers around the nation, news websites, blogs and others continue to declare that there is “more evidence” that BPA poses a health problem. Real the full story on OpenMarket.org.
“Before You Call for a Ban on BPA, Ask Yourself if the Science Supports it,” by By Mitchell Cheeseman
It is ironic that Jeanne Rizzo’s post on behalf of the Breast Cancer Fund states that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “is tasked with making decisions in favor of public health based on scientific evidence—not on politics…,” when it’s clear that she wants the opposite. She wants FDA to ignore the scientific evidence and make a public health decision based on her beliefs and politics. Her post is fraught with factual inaccuracies that distort information about BPA’s safety and FDA’s review of BPA. Read the full article on The Hill’s Congress Blog.
“Canada Does an About-Face on BPA — Again” by ACSH.
Last week, the Canadian government reaffirmed the safe use of bisphenol A (BPA) in food packaging, upholding its 2008 stance that dietary exposure to the chemical does not pose a health risk to the general population, including newborns and young children. Although this report is reassuring, Canada is responsible for much of the anti-chemical hysteria surrounding plastics and chemicals today. Read the full article in ACSH Dispatch.
“The BPA Wars: Junk Science and Junk Journalism,” by Alan Caruba
On Tuesday, September 18, FoxNews.com posted an article by Alex Crees, a health news reporter, “Chemical BPA linked to obesity in children, teens.” If Ms. Crees had done any research to verify the facts she recounted in “a new study”, she would have known it was yet another bogus effort to correlate eating food with BPA. Bisphenol-A, more commonly called BPA, is a chemical that has been in wide, safe use for over 50 years. It is used to coat the insides of aluminum cans and plastic bottles and protects them against food pathogens such as botulism and has the added value of protecting plastic bottles against breakage. Read the full article on Canada Free Press.
“Blame Game Alert: Now It’s the Food Wrapper!” by Julie Gunlock.
Boy, it sure is hard to keep track of all these supposed causes of obesity: happy meals, school lunches, video games, television commercials, cartoons, lack of community parks, violent neighborhoods, soda, fat, salt, sugar, ice cream, milk, beef, fast food, energy drinks, sugary cereals… Now, it’s chemicals. The latest screaming headline blames … Read the full article on the IWF Blog.
“Campbell’s Big Fat Green BPA Lie — and the Sustainability Activists that Enabled It,” by Jon Entine.
How did the world’s largest soup company go from pariah to paragon over its use of the controversial chemical bisphenol A? It lied, and credulous NGOs and chemophobic campaigners played willing patsies. Here’s an ugly story of what happens when ideology corrupts science. Read the full story on Forbes.com.
“Campbell’s Promises More Than It Can Deliver,” by American Council on Science and Health.
And while we’re on the topic of BPA, we’d like to applaud ACSH colleague Jon Entine’s recent exposé of the disconnect between public relations and scientific evidence that has resulted from uninformed public outcry over the chemical. “How did the world’s largest soup company go from pariah to paragon over its use of the controversial chemical bisphenol A?” Entine asks in his investigative piece for Forbes. “It lied,” he explains. He then goes on to tell “an ugly story of what happens when ideology corrupts science.” Read the full story in ACSH Dispatch.
“BPA-Obesity Study Virtually Meaningless,” by American Council on Science and Health.
In April of this year, the FDA rejected a petition by the Natural Resources Defense Council to ban the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in food packaging. We at ACSH applauded the agency’s decision, which was based on a research review finding that normal levels of exposure to this chemical — used to protect canned foods from contamination and spoiling — do not pose a health risk to humans. So we were more than a little dismayed to see that the latest issue of JAMA features a study linking BPA to obesity in children and teenagers. Read the full story in ACSH Dispatch.
“Great New Book on Science and the Environment,” by Todd Meyers.
One of the consistent issues we address here is the gap between the science and Washington’s environmental policy – even as policymakers and politicians claim to be following the science. Now there is a great book from the editor of Real Clear Science highlighting the many ways left-wing environmentalists ignore the science when it is inconvenient to their ideology. “Science Left Behind,” by Alex Berezow and Hank Campbell outlines a number of issues where the efforts of the environmental left are at odds with the science. Read the full article on the Washington Policy Center Blog.
“Green Calls for BPA Bans Are Dangerous,” by Angela Logomasini
This past July the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned the use of the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) to make baby bottles and sippy cups. Environmental activists would like you to believe the move was designed to protect public health and that more bans are necessary. But the greens are wrong on both counts — and their advice could imperil public health. Read the full story on Real Clear Policy.
“Scientific Illiteracy Is An Attack On Science Integrity,” by Hank Campbell.
New York Times opinion columnist Nick Kristof is at it again. Despite pleas, even from people inclined to like the New York Times and people inclined to side with him politically, he refuses to talk about science a little less or at least learn a little more. Read the full article on Science 2.0.
“Why Nick Kristof’s Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Us All,” by Trevor Butterworth.
Last May, Deborah Blum, a Pulitzer-winning science writer and a professor of journalism at the University of Wisconsin, published a column pleading with the New York Times’ opinion columnist Nick Kristof to stop writing about chemical risk: “if we, as journalists, are going to demand meticulous standards for the study and oversight of chemical compounds then we should try to be meticulous ourselves in making the case. And much as I would like it to be otherwise, I don’t see enough of that in Kristof’s chemical columns. They tend instead to be sloppy in their … Read the full article on Forbes.com.
“Lastest Junk Science on BPA And Heart Disease,” By Angela Logomasini
Earlier this week, we learned from the wonderful world of junk science that eating egg yolks is as dangerous as smoking. Now we learn that eating canned vegetables will harden your arteries! These stories are hard to believe for good reasons, but they sure do make catchy headlines for news sites and green bloggers. Read the full article on OpenMarket.org.
“The Media’s War on Business – and Science – Gets Personal,” by Lisa De Pasquale.
The media only asserts its role as watchdog when it reiterates stereotypes they’ve created. Meanwhile, they ignore that the small number of studies that claim to find enigmatic “links” to BPA consumption and a host of problems also profit from their findings. It’s to researchers’ advantage to report a link, no matter how miniscule, so their funding doesn’t dry up. Yet we don’t see special reports from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on the millions of taxpayer dollars funding studies for bogus reasons. We also don’t see many reports on how the media profits from their grandstanding against business. The media uses scare tactics to garner viewers, readers, advertising dollars and awards from one another….Read the full story on Townhall.
“BPA is Safe in Food Contact Materials,” By Dr. Mitchell A. Cheeseman. The recent opinion piece by Dr. Laura Vandenberg (August 5) with its staggeringly one-sided presentation of “facts” represents all that is wrong with the debate over bisphenol A, or BPA. Instead of an objective consideration of the science, Dr. Vandenberg distorts information about BPA. Dr. Vandenberg’s reference of the “Chapel Hill” study conducted five years ago, conveniently neglects to mention that, since that study in 2007, there have been more than a dozen comprehensive reviews by independent government scientists in Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia and the United States. Each one concluded the current uses of BPA in food contact materials are safe. Read the full article in the in the Bangor Daily News.
“More Junk Science on Chemicals,” by Julie Gunlock.
Last month, a new study, published in the journal NeuroToxicology, examined human exposure to two chemicals which are currently the darlings of anti-chemical activists groups: phthalates (which I’ve written about here) and BPA (which I’ve written about here and here). This new study on “lifestyle behaviors” made headlines because it showed a small population of Old Order Mennonite women (who live much like the Amish and reject modern technology) have lower levels of exposure to chemicals as compared to CDC data on the general population (NHANES 2007–2008). In other news, kids like ice cream. … Read the full article on IWF Blog.
“FDA Bans BPA in Baby Bottles Based on Pressure, not Science,” by American Council on Science and Health.
In April, we lauded the FDA for ignoring chemophobic hype when the agency refused to ban the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in food packaging, cans, and other consumer products. Despite activist pressure — including a lawsuit by the Natural Resources Defense Council — the FDA stuck to its scientific guns and determined that BPA posed no health threats to consumers. Imagine our disappointment, then, to learn that the FDA yesterday banned BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups — a decision that runs counter to the scientific evidence demonstrating that products containing the chemical are safe for toddlers and adults alike. … Read the full article in ACSH Dispatch.
“Extent of Chemophobic Misinformation: Worse than we Thought,” by American Council on Science and Health.
We’d like to give a shout-out to Julia Seymour of the Business & Media Institute of the Virginia-based Media Research Center. Seymour recently conducted a content analysis of mainstream media (The New York Times, The Washington Post, ABC, CBS, and NBC news reports, among many others), identifying the scare tactics they’ve used to exacerbate the phobia so many people have of food-packaging chemicals — specifically in her analysis, bisphenol A (BPA) … Read the full story in ACSH Dispatch.
“Witch Hunt Continues on Bisphenol A,” by Angela Logomasini
This week the Food and Drug Administration(FDA)yet again reaffirmed the safety of the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA), but the witch hunt for evidence against BPA safety continues. Environmental activists and others still won’t accept the findings — encouraging more government spending to study the chemical. But no matter how much the feds spend, researchers are unlikely to find anything new to condemn BPA. Read the full story on OpenMarket.org.
“Cancer rates dropping in the U.S.,” by American Council on Science and Health.
ACSH is happy to note, yet again, that both U.S. cancer incidence and death rates continue to fall. The latest report, issued annually since 1998 and published in the journal Cancer, is compiled by various health agencies including the CDC and the American Cancer Society and includes nearly every cancer case reported through 2008. According to the statistics, the rate of new cancer cases has been decreasing at a rate of about half a percent annually since 1999, while overall cancer mortality has dropped by 1.5 percent per year in adults and 1.7 percent in children. Read the full article in ACSH Dispatch.
“You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still not toxic,” by American Council on Science and Health.
Speaking of trumped up chemical fears, a recent bill introduced by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) is calling on the FDA to start regulating the cosmetics industry, which has largely been exempt from the agency’s control. If the new proposal were enacted, the FDA would be allowed to ban cosmetics ingredients that have been linked to cancer and reproductive disorders, and cosmetics companies would be required to add ingredients labels on fragrances and salon products. Read the full article in ACSH Dispatch.
“Alphabet soup: BPA, FDA, NRDC,” by American Council on Science and Health.
As part of a legal settlement with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the FDA must decide by tomorrow whether it will ban the widely used chemical bisphenol A (BPA). The agency’s decision will determine if the chemical used to make polycarbonate plastic can remain in food packaging. BPA-based plastics have been used for decades to protect against bacteria and food-borne illness. Even so, earlier this month, the Campbell Soup Company seems to have succumbed to public pressure and announced it would be eliminating BPA in the lining of its cans. But one of the biggest questions on everyone’s mind is: What will they use as a substitute? Read the full article in ACSH Dispatch.