BPA isn’t worth the risk

BPA isn’t worth the risk

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: The “holy grail” for food packagers and chemical industry lobbyists was a pregnant woman endorsing bisphenol A, according to a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Watchdog report.

Good luck with that.

No doubt, the controversial chemical BPA needs a makeover of its image, but no amount of shilling will change certain facts.

Dozens of independent studies over the years have linked the chemical to a variety of ailments in laboratory animals, including cancer. The government in recent years ignored those studies and focused on ones funded by industry that found the chemical to be safe. An increasing number of lawmakers believe BPA is a risk. Canada has banned it from baby bottles. In May, Minnesota became the first state and Chicago the first city to ban the sale of baby bottles and sippy cups containing BPA. Bans are being considered in Michigan, Maine, Connecticut and California.

Congress should ban the chemical — at least for products intended for children. Because BPA is used in a variety of products from dental sealants to the linings of metal cans, it might be difficult to ban it immediately in all products. But lawmakers could give the industry a transition period, setting a date certain for a total ban.

Journal Sentinel reporters Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger reported that food-packaging executives and lobbyists met at a swanky club in Washington to agree on a PR strategy. Using a pregnant woman to vouch for the chemical’s safety was one idea.

Perhaps chemical makers and packagers should spend more time looking for ways to improve the safety of their products and less time looking for ways to dress them up in a PR campaign.