The JS' Self-Defense Mechanism

The Milwaukee JS has gone all crusader about bisphenol-A (BPA). They join the P.I. Lawyers (that's "ambulance-chasers", folks) in their zeal to rid the world of this menace--whether by writing incessantly about it or by suing somebody into bankruptcy, or both.

Well. Seems that McIlheran ran across a study which cast a few doubts on the trial-attorney/JS line. (Be SURE to read the combox there. Love and kisses are strewn all over it. JS, in turn, found that the study included scientists who had been affiliated with BPA manufacture.

And the JS cites some outfit called "Environmental Health Sciences" as a 'non-profit environmental group'.

Well, maybe that's what they are. Who can argue? They've been pretty careful to mask exactly what they are by overlaying it with their "news service." As you can see, the "news" is all......bad. But there's a redeeming value: they'll send you aspiring journalists all sorts of "feed" stories for your newspaper!

In any case, it's entirely possible that "Environmental Health Sciences" is funded at least partially by trial lawyers.

About 10 seconds' work with Google also tells you that the 'news service' is supported by the Kendeda Fund--which is also difficult to track down on the 'net. But Kendeda does "partner" with a very well-known outfit: the Tides Foundation. (You remember Tides for its intimate associations with Mrs. Heinz-Kerry and its unvarnished love for all things AlGore.)

And, to top it off, there's an interdisciplinary pissing match!

...there's a deep rift between the scientific disciplines of toxicology and endocrinology, hinging on the theory that some chemicals - including bisphenol A - may behave more like hormones than traditional toxins, and therefore may affect health and development at very low concentrations. Toxicologists don't believe that theory. Endocrinologists do...

Fortunately, I'm a member of the human race, and that means, statistically speaking, that I'm a-gonna' die. BPA, lead, mercury, nicotine, bug-spray, cancer, heart failure, auto accident, spousal shooting---whatever---I'm a-gonna' die.

Probably long before the JS-Trial Lawyer-Bayer-Endocrinologist-Toxicologist pissing match is over with.

One more thing: the JS article of today states "And the FDA reversed its position on BPA safety in January 2010, saying it was concerned about the chemical's effects on fetuses, infants and children..."

Well, that's one way to phrase it.

...the FDA specifically stated that they had ’some concern’ about BPA. This level of concern merely states that there are insufficient data from studies in humans to reach a conclusion on reproductive or developmental hazards presented by current exposures to bisphenol A, but there is limited evidence of developmental changes occurring in some animal studies at doses that are experienced by humans. It is uncertain if similar changes would occur in humans, but the possibility of adverse health effects cannot be dismissed.

That's the OTHER way to phrase it.

But here's the realistic way to analyze it:

You would have to cram 1,300 pounds of food that was in contact with a BPA-lined can or bottle, every single day for your entire life, into your body in order to exceed the EPA’s safety levels of BPA.

Personally, I'll pass on the last 1298 pounds of food. Your mileage may vary.