As a Taxpayer, I Just Have to Say, WTF?

There is another article in today's Washington Post about the BPA controversy. I shouldn't have read it before I drank my coffee, because I wake up pretty, well... angry until I've had my coffee and once I read the article... well, there's not enough coffee in the world to quell the angry now.

The article gives more details on the studies that I mentioned before. The two studies funded by the chemical industry that the FDA relied upon in their (still standing) opinion that BPA is safe. And the hundreds of other studies that found it is not safe. (You know, the one's the FDA didn't use.)

So what is wrong with this picture? Let me just start with a quote from Mitchell Cheeseman, deputy director of the FDA's Office of Food Additive Safety in explaining why the agency used studies that were funded by the industry in question. (And I must say, I can hardly believe he said this, much less to a reporter for the Washington Post, but here you have it):

"The fact is, it's the industry's responsibility to demonstrate the safety of their products," he said. "The fact that industry generated data to support the safety I don't think is an unusual thing."

Seriously? SERIOUSLY? Our tax dollars are paying for this? Ever heard of the fox guarding the henhouse? Ever heard of TOBACCO? Dude. Seriously?

And why should we NOT trust the chemical industry to give us accurate data on the safety of their products? Well, let's see...

How about because U.S. manufacturers produce 7 billion pounds of BPA annually. I'm pretty sure that's your answer right there.

Remember the tobacco industry? They had some great scientific studies up their sleeves too.

Indulge me for a sec while I just review the Mission Statement of the FDA (italics added).


The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health.

Ok, yeah. Just checking.

Last year, the National Institutes of Health (in the face of growing concern about the safety of BPA) convened two panels to study the risks. One panel consisted of international experts on BPA (employed by universities or governments). The other panel included 12 scientists who had never studied BPA. The first panel found a strong cause for health concerns including cancer and early puberty. The second panel found "some concern" for effects on neurological development but "minimal" concern that it could cause cancer or early puberty.

Interesting. You wanna know why? Because the second panel used Sciences International, a Virginia-based consulting firm to select and summarize the research that panel members relied upon for their review.

You wanna know who else Sciences International works for? Dow Chemical and BASF, two of the major manufacturers of BPA. Did Sciences International do anything to slant the research available to the panel? That's for the government to decide, but their contract with NIH has been cancelled and their work on the project audited.

It is interesting to me that from 1997 to 2005, 116 scientific studies of BPA were published. Of those, 90% of the ones that were government-funded found negative health effects from BPA. None of the industry-funded studies found any negative health effects. So I find it somewhat amazing that if Sciences International was truly doing the the job it was contracted to do (and paid to do with our tax dollars), it could have provided the second panel with a group of studies that led them to the conclusion they drew. I'm just saying.

The article ends with some quotes that make my BPA-laced blood boil. Mitchell Cheeseman (remember him?) said that the FDA has created a task force to study BPA, but that the agency maintains that is it "absolutely safe" for use in food products.

Seriously?

In response, Frederick vom Saal, a reproductive scientist at the University of Missouri at Columbia (the world's foremost non-industry expert on BPA) says "This argument is over. It ended a long time ago. There's only been an illusion of a controversy created by a well-financed public relations outfit. The idea that the FDA tells people this is safe is offensive."

Is your blood boiling? The thing is, the argument is not yet over because our own governemnt STILL does not recognize that BPA is not safe to use in food-related products. Therefore, it's still there - in our baby formula cans, canned goods and drinking bottles. The scientific argument may be over, but the political one is just beginning.

You really should read the whole article. But first, drink your coffee, or gin or whatever puts you in your happy place, because there is no happy place after you read this. Many kudos to Lyndsey Layton for some great writing.