Chemophobes: World Health Organization Says BPA Ban Premature


For gullible chemophobes

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a compound that strengthens some plastics that are used in a wide variety of consumer products.e.g., DVDs, sports equipment, drinking bottles, plastic food containers, etc. BPA has been the target of an ongoing environmentalist scare campaign claiming that it is associated with birth defects, early puberty, obesity, brain damage, cancer, even lowering men's sperm production. One problem, evaluations by numerous scientific panels have not found much scientific support for the scare.

Nevertheless, Canada and Minnesota have banned BPA in some products. Well, that action may have been "premature." That's not just my opinion, but that of a panel of experts convened under the auspices of the notoriously risk averse World Health Organization. The WHO panel noted that BPA is detected in people, but added that the experts …

…were also able to model circulating levels of BPA in the human body, which are very low, indicating that BPA is not accumulated in the body and is rapidly eliminated through urine.

A few recent experimental and epidemiological studies found associations between low BPA exposure levels and some adverse health outcomes. The meeting concluded that, at this stage, it is difficult to interpret the relevance of these studies in the light of current knowledge of this compound. Until these associations can be confirmed, initiation of public health measures would be premature.

Never fear, chemophobes will not rest until some researchers in desperate need of funding finally gin up a study "proving" that BPA is somehow dangerous. The study might even be right, but the results will be suspect to reasonable people because they obviously confirm what the usual gaggle of scaremongers already "know." I lament for science.

For more on the BPA scare, see John Stossel's Reason column, "Plastic Water Bottles Won't Hurt You."

Via American Council on Science and Health.

NEXT: Friday Funnies

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Until this message is written in big colorful font in every parenting magazine every month it will not change the trend. Scaremongering works well when aimed at new or expectant mothers.

  2. Bisphenol A: It’s bad for what ails ya!

    (Also, anyone want to buy some fresh, cold-pressed, Snake Oil? Does wonders against the ravages of Bisphenol A.)

  3. “The study might even be right, but the results will be suspect to reasonable people…” OK., let’s get some Reasonoid volunteers and study sperm reduction. We can do it on the cheap, and collect samples in the usual jerk-circles.…..odern-era/

      1. What part of doing this on the cheap don’t you get? Besides, I’m not fighting with commenter’s mouths.

  4. C’mon Bailey, it’s not real science unless it scares the shit out of somebody.

  5. Certainly BPA doesn’t need to be banned. But to doubt that it’s detrimental to human health? Please.

    1. Right because nothing says “settled science” like a bunch of unsupported innuendo.


      1. Unsupported? There’s plenty of literature out there on BPA and its effects on biology. Head out of the sand please!

  6. …, early puberty,…

    At least you reported on the positive side effects as well. This is some fair and balanced reporting by Reason.

    1. Why do I think you were disappointed Amazon cancelled a book
      this week

      1. Note to the editorial board of Reason: That advertising on MSNBC is finally paying off. A humorless retard has appeared on our boards without any semblance of a sense of humor and no ability to detect sarcasm whatsoever.

        Note to Rather: go fuck your mother.

        1. Can I borrow your dick?

          1. Holy shit. I just realized you’re rectal. Why the name change?

            Well, in that case, you’ll need a two-headed dildo.
            (and sorry about the MSNBC thing. I didn’t realize you were posting moronic bullshit on here for quite some time.)

            1. Ken, prove you’re a man and post a comment on my site
              No donations involved, and instead of a cheap T-shirt, Sugarefree is going to blow the first Reasonoid who comments.
              Bonus: He swallows!

              1. You do realize that blogwhoring works better if you actually blog, right? Your last shit is from February.

          2. No, that would be an obummer.

      2. Why do I think you were disappointed Amazon cancelled a book
        this week

        I’ve been waiting for somebody to mention that. It actually caused a feminist to advocate private property rights (the confusion in the comments is priceless).…..-censoring

  7. Canada and Minnesota have banned BPA in some products

    Coming soon: Canada and Minnesota ban Four Loko in BPA-laced bottles.

  8. My disabled son, on SSI, suffers prostatitis and recently had an operation for kidney stones. For years, he ate fruits, vegetables, beans and soups from cans. Like many on SSI, he goes through maybe 100 cans of food a month.
    Recently, after learning that BPA actually causes the ailments he suffers, my son stopped eating canned foods. Within weeks, all his symptoms–painful symptoms he has suffered for ten years–have completely disappeared. The reason? He is no longer ingesting BPA.
    Thousands of impoverished people in the US are homeless, in shelters or group homes, with no ability to store food in refrigerators or cook food on stovetops. They are forced to eat out of cans at each meal. Shelters serve food daily to the hungry from cans donated in canned food drives. The resulting physical problems caused by BPA cost the taxpayer millions of dollars to treat.
    I believe our FDA is complicit in harming the health of the poor by not banning BPA. Compounding the problem, the government then siphons taxpayer money to help the poor with resulting prostate and kidney operations, hospitalization, and medication.
    I want to know why the FDA permits a chemical like BPA to be used in food containers when it is so dangerous. I want to know why the FDA doesn’t ban BPA now that it is known to cause widespread medical problems.
    The chemical companies are in bed with the lawmakers and the FDA. They are mercenaries committing genocide, and the FDA is the accomplice.
    My family has vowed not to eat canned foods until BPA is banned.
    What else can we do?

    Carol Green, Retired California Teacher

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.