FDA Reverses Itself, Says Common Plastics Chemical Is A 'Concern'
Just remember: by the time the FDA is admitting something, it's pretty bad. Now let's see if the companies making this stuff manage to "K" (as in K Street) out of this:
The Food and Drug Administration has reversed its position on the safety of Bisphenol A, a chemical found in plastic bottles, soda cans, food containers and thousands of consumer goods, saying it now has concerns about health risks.
Growing scientific evidence has linked the chemical to a host of problems, including cancer, sexual dysfunction and heart disease. Federal officials said they are particularly concerned about BPA's effect on the development of fetuses, infants and young children.
"We have some concern, which leads us to recommend reasonable steps the public can take to reduce exposure to BPA," said Joshua Sharfstein, FDA's deputy commissioner, in a conference call to reporters Friday.
Regulators stopped short of banning the compound or even requiring manufacturers to label products containing BPA, saying that current data are not clear enough to support a legal crackdown. FDA officials also said they were hamstrung from dealing quickly with BPA by an outdated regulatory framework.
Sharfstein said the agency is conducting "targeted" studies of BPA, part of a two-year, $30 million effort by the administration to answer key questions about the chemical that will help determine what action, if any, is necessary to protect public health. The Obama administration pledged to take a "fresh look" at the chemical.
BPA, used to harden plastics, is so prevalent that more than 90 percent of the U.S. population has traces of it in its urine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Researchers have found that BPA leaches from containers into food and beverages, even at cold temperatures.
The FDA's announcement came after extensive talks between federal agencies and the White House about the best approach to an issue that has become a significant concern for consumers and the chemical industry.
If the Bisphenol A doesn't kill you the corn will.
HuffPo here
Too bad the ever Corporate friendly crowd in DC didn't require the labeling of said corn, or any other genetically modified food.
But, on the bright side, maybe they will do something about the Bisphenol A. Or maybe not.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
plastics, polystyrene, DDT, agent orange, aspartame, rBGH, uses child labor in India who handle pesticides for fifty cents a day, identified as being a "potentially responsible party" for 56 contaminated Superfund sites in the U.S., toxic waste dumper in numerous countries, has been sued numerous times for damaging the health of it's employees, and the poor suckers who live nearby, largest producer of herbicides...
what a great company (not that you didn't already know all this).
is probably a good idea since it can mimic hormones but that GMO study you cited is ludicrous. No one takes anything posted at Huffpo seriously if has anything to do with science. In that regard they are a joke.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
why is it ludicrous to believe that corn with roundup in it is bad for you?
Did you even check the link?
The study is published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences here.
A peer reviewed scientific journal. The HuffPo piece also points to a summary of the study by Rady Ananda at Food Freedom here
You said:
Do you mean to take issue with the Journal's study per se?
Or do you just intend to dismiss it based on the fact that it is reported at HuffPo as seems to be the case?
How do you know that no one takes anything seriously regarding science posted there?
Where is your research? Did you read the article, or the Journal report?
It states that Monsanto's original studies for long term effects were based a 90 day test cycle which our compliant Government accepted. Do you find using a 90 day test cycle to predict long term effects ludicrous in any way?
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
you can extrapolate on a 90 day sample for long term effects IF you trust the sample in the first place. There's the rub -- it's Monsanto's own study.
Did you read the articles?
There are a number of reasons cited not to trust the Monsanto study, but the overriding reason is a basic conflict of interest, which a government dedicated to at least a minimum of public service would pay attention to.
Such casual approval of something so fundamental as genetic modification of basic food stuffs is not in the public interest.
Now or in the future because these products once out there seem to stick around.
People have the erroneous assumption that the FDA is overseeing GMOs.
They are not, they do not require GMO labeling on foods which means there is NO LIABILITY.
We could have massive adverse consequences in the future and no one will litigate because there is no proof of what GMO is in what food.
The Government as the Predator State.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
I was just adding that a 90 day study simply provides a sample. But, then, as you say, whatever is done with the sample is moot if the sample is no good to begin with. We're on the same side.
The BPA cardiovascular findings have been replicated.
.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
I wouldn't say that the FDA is "reversing itself".
This is hardly the same FDA we've had in the past few years.
This FDA is actually regulating something.
Huh...Go figure.
"I can't keep doing this on my own with these...people."
It is great that Obama put someone at FDA who actually has the best interests of people (especially children) at heart.
Very novel, indeed.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
Well this is just great. Just fucking fabulous. Drink only from from a spring out of a glass.
I'm so upset I can't contain myself anymore.
the Obama administration is a thousand times better than the alternative.
The Obama FDA reversed the BUSH FDA.
Duh.
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogrepo...
It’s not demagoguery - It’s enhanced political marketing
rather surprising...
found this morning on the googlenews page:
FDA says it's unable to regulate BPA
As 'indirect food additive,' substance is exempt from scrutiny
U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials say they are powerless to regulate BPA, although they have declared the chemical to be a safety concern for fetuses, babies and young children.
A quirk in the rules allows BPA makers to skirt federal regulation.
"We may have to go after legislation to change it," Joshua Sharfstein, the FDA's principal deputy director, told the Journal Sentinel. The newspaper has been investigating the government's lack of regulation regarding BPA for three years.
[...]
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogrepo...
"WE ARE ON OUR OWN"
And it hasn't changed. We can't wait for THEM to consider the "needs" of corporations. We must select our food carefully. Or grow our own. Boycott works. United We can win. Divided not.
Personally, I think that BPA is the reason we're seeing a huge autism epidemic. Hormone mimics cause serious developmental problems when they're present at the particular points that certain things happen during gestation and in childhood. They change the way parts of human beings grow... not just how much, but change in kind as well as quantity. It all came up really fast... and BPAs widespread use (esp. in plastic water bottles) tracks that really well. Now, I know that correlation does not equal causation, but both the mechanism and the timing fit... and BPA changes brain structure in mice during development.
I think it's actually a much better candidate than vaccination... though I also think that using a mercury based preservative in something you inject into children has to be thought of as insane.
Comments are closed on this entry