The recent opinion piece by Dr. Laura Vandenberg (August 5) with its staggeringly one-sided presentation of “facts” represents all that is wrong with the debate over bisphenol A, or BPA.
Instead of an objective consideration of the science, Dr. Vandenberg distorts information about BPA. Dr. Vandenberg’s reference of the “Chapel Hill” study conducted five years ago, conveniently neglects to mention that, since that study in 2007, there have been more than a dozen comprehensive reviews by independent government scientists in Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia and the United States. Each one concluded the current uses of BPA in food contact materials are safe. Additionally, in 2010, the World Health Organization brought together a balanced group of experts who concluded regulatory action was not needed.
It is most unfortunate that Dr. Vandenberg repeats the fiction that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s safety assessment is based on two industry-funded studies, and that the FDA failed to evaluate the majority of studies that assert positive results. Fortunately for the state of public health in this country, FDA does not simply count positive and negative studies as if each were a vote.
FDA critically reviewed all available data on BPA and assessed the relevance to safety of each study separately. FDA used universally recognized scientific criteria, including reproducibility, statistical rigor, route of exposure, ability to assess dose response, and other factors involving proper experimental design.
FDA then based its safety decision on the best, most relevant data. If Dr. Vandenberg read the March 30, 2012, FDA response to the Natural Resources Defense Council petition, in which it communicated the results of its latest comprehensive review of BPA, she would know that FDA found the data considered and the resulting opinion from the “Chapel Hill” study insufficient to alter its conclusion that current uses of BPA in food contact material are safe. I suggest those with concerns regarding BPA’s use in food packaging read this and other publicly available FDA reviews for themselves.
Finally, Dr. Vandenberg incorrectly states the FDA recently changed its position on BPA’s safety because it removed the long-standing approval for the use of polycarbonate in baby bottles and other infant feeding articles. FDA’s action was not based on safety, but on a demonstration that the industry had abandoned these uses of polycarbonate. This fact is clearly stated in the documents announcing and completing FDA’s action.
Another fact conveniently missing from Dr. Vandeberg’s piece is that BPA-based epoxy coatings are critical in maintaining the sterility of food products. The coating allows for high-temperature sterilization of the food product when packaged and provides protection from defects forming in the container that would allow bacteria and microorganisms to enter.
According to FDA records, there has not been an incidence of foodborne illness resulting from a failure of metal packaging in more than 38 years.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that each year roughly one out of six Americans, or 48 million people, gets sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die from foodborne diseases. We cannot dismiss the essential role of epoxy resin coatings in protecting against these very real, costly and tragic results.
The level of obfuscation and outright false information in Dr. Vandenberg’s opinion piece is enough to question all of her assertions and any of her writings. Public health authorities such as the FDA, the European Food Safety Authority, Health Canada and national authorities in several European and Asian countries have all reviewed the safety of BPA. All of these comprehensive reviews conclude that BPA is safe in food contact uses and all are publicly available for those who are looking for objective science.
I urge the Maine Board of Environmental Protection to dismiss the hype and misinformation and consider the science objectively. I have every confidence that if the Maine Board of Environmental Protection does this, it will conclude that no regulatory action is needed regarding BPA.
Dr. Mitchell Cheeseman is a Managing Director at Steptoe & Johnson, LLP. He has 20 years of experience conducting and overseeing safety assessments at FDA and served for 13 years in a leadership capacity within FDA’s Foods Program.
Dr. Cheeseman’s background and credentials are truly impressive. This is easily verified by reviewing his bio at Steptoe & Johnson. This opinion piece is well written and supported by facts. unfortunately the anti BPA crowd have already made up their minds and no amount of science will change their opinions. Dr. Cheeseman’s credibility will be impeached not because of facts, but because he happens to work for a law firm. Once again good science will be sacrificed on the altar of popular public opinion.
And formerly worked for the FDA.
…..and has close ties to the industry he says is safe???? Once again we are being asked to trust the fox guarding the hen house.
It didn’t take long to refute this mans credentials. Within a few seconds I had several web sites that claim Mr Cheseman is in the pocket of the industry.
We, as a people need to evaluate the quantity and nature of the thousands of chemicals and man made compounds that go into the products we use. Profit has overcome common sense and basic concern for the safety of people. We have become profit centers.
Is the human races only goal to make a profit?
How about the studies that refute or were ignored by Vandenberg?
Wait a second… which studies were ignored by Vandenburg? She discussed the industry funded studies, which obviously suggest that BPA is “safe”. Do you mean the regulatory decisions made by authorities in Europe or Japan? How is that relevant to the US? (Particularly considering that can linings have a completely different composition in Japan…)
Google Dr. Cheeseman. You’ll see that he did not hide his close (yet inappropriate) relationship with the BPA industry when he worked for FDA. And while he admits his current affiliation is with a law firm, he doesn’t note that the law firm has chemical manufacturers for clients, and that the law firm’s mission is to help companies interact with government agencies. Do you think companies need this service when there chemicals are harmless???
No chemical or substance is “harmless”. Even safe needs qulification which is tough to do in just a headline.
But Cheeseman didn’t offer any qualifications to “safe”. So what are they? Safe if you’re an adult? Safe if you only eat so much? Safe if you only get it in your diet, and not through your skin from register receipts? I’m not sure I’m following this statement, and why you put it here after my comment.
Reviewing his bio at Steptoe & Johnson is rather misleading. Do a Google search on “Dr. Mitchell A. Cheeseman” and you will find that he is, basically, a toaddie for the chemical industry. As for Vandenburg, her paper does ignore some studies, but they were paid for by the chemical industries.
A close reading of this “editorial response” will acquaint you with what our Congressmen and women face every working day. The smoothly written protestations of a paid lobbyist. Multiply this by about 1000 and you can more readily appreciate how the rubbery twisting of logic is applied as “intellectual pressure” to subtlely redirect your political representative’s vote. Generally to both your and my detriment. It rates somewhere below a notice of lottery winnings from Nigeria.
Also worth noting is this quote: During a briefing before the agency’s outside Science Board Monday, Cheeseman, the scientist responsible for a highly controversial review of the safety of BPA contamination in food, indicated that FDA continues to rely almost exclusively on two industry-sponsored studies that have dismissed BPA exposure as harmless. As well, he made it clear that FDA is still ignoring the more numerous independent research studies, many of them conducted with funding from the National Institutes of Health, that have found that low doses of BPA compromise the health of laboratory animals, especially to those exposed in utero.
From http://www.ewg.org/BPA/newsrelease/Deja-vu-At-FDA-With-BPA
And aren’t you now in the ‘pocket’ of the Environmental Working Group, based on your reliance on their supposed overview that ignored more reliable studies in Europe and Australia?
…this is what you get when you start ad hom. attacks, you get tarred with same brush; so pick at the study not the sponsor.
Huh??? What ad hominem attack?? That was a quote directly from a press release (and therefore not an ad hominem attack…), which states that the FDA relied on a few industry studies and ignored numerous independent studies. Use google and you’ll see that it isn’t just EWG who wrote this. It was widespread news at the time. Cheeseman denies it now. Who do I personally trust more? EWG. And I wish I was in the pocket of *anyone* – I could use the spare change!
And why rely on EWG? Why not read this article from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/26/ST2008042602242.html
It starts with:
Despite more than 100 published studies by government scientists and university laboratories that have raised health concerns about a chemical compound that is central to the multibillion-dollar plastics industry, the Food and Drug Administration has deemed it safe largely because of two studies, both funded by an industry trade group.
Ooooh, and here’s the statement that refutes Cheeseman’s editorial:
The agency says it has relied on research backed by the American Plastics Council because it had input on its design, monitored its progress and reviewed the raw data…
Mitchell Cheeseman, deputy director of the FDA’s office of food additive safety, said the agency is not biased toward industry. “The fact is, it’s 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.”
The Washington Post is hardly in the pocket of EWG, or anyone else for that matter. Perhaps the better question is: Why is Cheeseman’s story changing now??
How appropriate that Cheeseman puts “facts” in quotation marks! It seems like he’s playing loose with the facts himself! The FDA commissioner for legislation talked – to Congress – about how their decision on BPA was based on 2 industry based studies. Guess what else? They weren’t even peer reviewed! http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/29525374.html
According to this article http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/45228647.html the FDA has consistently given preference to information coming out of the industry. Cheeseman even discusses how he likes to look at the data before reviewing the study: “”I’d like to get information together that our chemists could look at to determine if there are problems with that data in advance of possibly reviewing the study,” Mitchell Cheeseman, deputy director of the FDA’s center for food safety and applied nutrition, said in an e-mail seeking advice from Steven Hentges, executive director of the trade association’s BPA group.”
This alone makes Cheeseman’s claims suspect, but in resorting to personal attacks on this Vandenburg rather than refuting her cited studies, it shows that the “facts” he relies on aren’t strong enough to stand on their own.
Believing the chemical industry’s claims about the safety of their products when they have serious monetary stake in said chemicals seems counterproductive. Money talks, but we don’t have to listen.
Most of the expertise to evalutate chemicals and other products exist in the industries involved. Granted, follow the money but also evaluate the research results on their own merits (or lack thereof).
I am continually shocked by the extent to which highly paid lobbyists like Cheeseman will blatantly lie. It’s as if they don’t fear being called on their misinformation campaigns since their ties to industry leave them with little credibility anyway. A quick example: Cheeseman claims Canada and other countries have found found that BPA is safe. Where are your specifics, Cheeseman? Actually, Health Canada found that BPA is “dangerous” in 2008: http://tinyurl.com/932y4m8. I could go on and on regarding the problems with Cheeseman’s rebuttal, but I am sure that the people of Maine are wise enough to trust an independent academic scientist (Dr. Vandenberg) as opposed to a plastics industry shill like Cheeseman.
Is there anything this guy (Dr. Cheeseman) has claimed that is true? He wrote that all these other places found BPA to be safe, but ^ this article shows that is wrong for Canada. He wrote that FDA considered more than 2 studies but the Sentinel article above says it was 2 and so does the Washington Post article and the EWG summary. PLUS industry helped them write the FDA opinion! And FDA went to industry to get help squshing studies linking BPA to miscarriages. He wants us to dismiss everything Dr. Vanderberg has written, but shouldn’t we do the same for him? a quick trip to Google Scholar, comparing the papers written by Dr. Vandenberg and Dr. Cheeseman… I can’t follow a lot of this stuff (or maybe any of it), but she has a lot of papers, hers is cited a lot and looks focused on BPA effects.
I spent all morning trying to find the documents
that Cheeseman referred to in his editorial on the FDA and the recent ban on
BPA in baby bottles. Cheeseman wrote, “Dr. Vandenberg incorrectly states the
FDA recently changed its position on BPA’s safety because it removed the
long-standing approval for the use of polycarbonate in baby bottles and other
infant feeding articles. FDA’s action was not based on safety, but on a
demonstration that the industry had abandoned these uses of polycarbonate. This
fact is clearly stated in the documents announcing and completing FDA’s
action.” These documents are not on the FDA’s website, or at least I can’t find
them with any search terms related to BPA! Although I can find several news
articles stating “the F.D.A. said that its decision was a response to a request
by the American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry’s main trade
association, that rules allowing BPA in those products be phased out, in part
to boost consumer confidence”, one would think that such a position would be
front-and-center on the agency’s own website.
I want to take the opportunity to clarify a few items attributed to me above but taken out of context.
First, the email mentioned above that I sent in 2005 to Dr. Steven Hentges of ACC was a request for data that Dr. Hentges presented at a public meeting I had attended several days before. My purpose in making the request was to challenge Dr. Hentges to backup what he had said about the validity of the chemical analysis with the detailed data and analysis which he had presented in brief. As far as the idea of looking at the data before reviewing the entire study, that is simply a matter of efficiently managing scarce public health resources. Why? Because, if the chemical analysis measuring BPA was flawed then the entire study was flawed and not worth expending time on. In other words, if we can’t be sure how much or if any BPA is present, we can’t associate BPA with any effects observed in the study.
Second, the quotes regarding industry studies are also taken out of context in which they were offered. My point was that those two studies are not the only studies considered in FDA’s review. However, they are the best ones from which to estimate a no effect level for BPA. A scientific fact which the U.S. and European authorities agree on as well as national authorities in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Belgium, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. As I said, FDA evaluated all the available data and chose the BEST most reliable data available to make its risk assessment. In addition, contrary to the misstatement above at least one of those studies is in the peer reviewed literature. Moreover, the data has been reviewed by hundreds of regulatory scientists worldwide in a far more rigorous manner than any journal peer review process. Why is it important that regulatory scientists in Europe and elsewhere have reached the same conclusions as FDA? It is important because they are regulating the same chemical exposure and they have also looked at a complete compilation of all the available data and reached the same determinations regarding the science. We seem to have a double standard in play here. If some wish to count studies that purport to show positive results, it would seem to be reasonable to consider that the vast majority of comprehensive reviews of those studies say BPA is safe in food contact materials. In addition, if peer review is critical, why are we quoting safety assessment from the newspapers?
Third, to clarify, when I referred to Health Canada’s assessment, I was referring to the assessment on food packaging uses http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/packag-emball/bpa/bpa_hra-ers-eng.php not the earlier assessment which dealt primarily with polycarbonate baby bottles. However, both assessments conclude that there is negligible risk even though the earlier assessment proposes to take action despite that negligible risk.
Finally, rather googling me or taking my word, please google and read the safety reviews by regulatory authorities worldwide for yourself. They are all publically available and I had nothing to do with any but one of them. After all bringing up my credentials is just camouflage for not being able to address the sound scientific reviews by hundreds of qualified scientists.
Another note to the reader who could not find the documents on FDA’s website. They may be easier to locate through the Federal Register website directly. The final rule was published July17 and the filing notice published in mid-February will be referenced in it.
In addition, if peer review is critical, why are we quoting safety assessment from the newspapers?
Ummm… because the editorial didn’t include links to the original safety decisions, they aren’t easy to find, and they aren’t written for people like us!
Google can’t do everything (even though they imply they can). The original research reports indeed aren’t easy for the layperson to read and understand, not even for some scientists. Unless the newspaper reporter is a good scietific jounralist, I wouldn’t put much faith in the accuracy of their analyses and summaries either. Good science journalists exist, even for some newspapers, but they’re more commonly found in the commentary sections of journals like Science (AAAS) and Nature. Unfortunately for the masses, both are subscription publications but can be accessed in libraries.
I completely agree that google doesn’t get it all. But I don’t think we should discount journalist coverage of this type of work, or dismiss it because it isn’t “peer reviewed”. Science has a way of correcting itself. When a paper is published and it cannot be replicated, that becomes known either because of subsequent publications, retractions, etc. When a newspaper article gets it wrong, it can also be retracted or publicly corrected. We see it all the time.
The Sentinel was lauded for its coverage of industry influence on BPA assessments in the FDA. There are 5 or more pieces in the series. It took more more than an hour to read them all. I suggest you read through them too. Journalists have to stick to a code of ethics. The FDA did not dispute anythin in the Sentinel’s piece – and the Sentienel’s piece is built largely on quotes directly from Cheeseman’s emails!
The press often serves as a go-between for the public and agencies. agencies like the FDA have a PR office. They are supposed to communicate their decisions to the public. The question is, do I trust an independent reporter’s account of the exchanges between FDA and industry, which was surely fact-checked for fear of lawsuits? Or do I trust an editorial from a former FDA guy, who was shown to have a close (inappropriate?) relationship with the industry he was supposed to be policing? I think that is a question best left to each man to decide for himself – but it has shaped my view of this issue, even though I can’t follow the science papers themselves.
Cheeseman is now working in a law firm where he surely bills by the hour. Who did he bill for his time spent writing this piece? Unfortunately, the Sentinel reporters can no longer use FOIA to get that information.
Check out Cheesman’s response. Also, don’t just search for BPA. Use the more complete chemical name and the CAS Registry Number.
I want to take the opportunity to clarify a few items attributed to me above but taken out of context. First, the email mentioned above that I sent in 2005 to Dr. Steven Hentges of ACC was a request for data that Dr. Hentges presented at a public meeting I had attended several days before. My purpose in making the request was to challenge Dr. Hentges to backup what he had said about the validity of the chemical analysis with the detailed data and analysis which he had presented in brief. As far as the idea of looking at the data before reviewing the entire study, that is simply a matter of efficiently managing scarce public health resources. Why? Because, if the chemical analysis measuring BPA was flawed then the entire study was flawed and not worth expending time on. In other words, if we can’t be sure how much or if any BPA is present, we can’t associate BPA with any effects observed in the study. Second, the quotes regarding industry studies are also taken out of context in which they were offered. My point was that those two studies are not the only studies considered in FDA’s review. However, they are the best ones from which to estimate a no effect level for BPA. A scientific fact which the U.S. and European authorities agree on as well as national authorities in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Belgium, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada . As I said, FDA evaluated all the available data and chose the BEST most reliable data available to make its risk assessment. In addition, contrary to the misstatement above at least one of those studies is in the peer reviewed literature. Moreover, the data has been reviewed by hundreds of regulatory scientists worldwide in a far more rigorous manner than any journal peer review process. Why is it important that regulatory scientists in Europe and elsewhere have reached the same conclusions as FDA? It is important because they are regulating the same chemical exposure and they have also looked at a complete compilation of all the available data and reached the same determinations regarding the science. We seem to have a double standard in play here. If some wish to count studies that purport to show positive results, it would seem to be reasonable to consider that the vast majority (all save one) of comprehensive reviews of those studies say BPA is safe in food contact materials. In addition, if peer review is critical, why are we quoting safety assessment from the newspapers? Third, to clarify, when I referred to Health Canada’s assessment, I was referring to the assessment on food packaging uses http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/packag-emball/bpa/bpa_hra-ers-eng.php not the earlier assessment which dealt primarily with polycarbonate baby bottles. However, both assessments conclude that there is negligible risk even though the earlier assessment proposes to take action despite that negligible risk. Regarding the FDA documents one reader could not find, the final rule for the ACC petition is in the July 17, 2012 Federal Register and may be easier to locate through the Federal Register web site. It will reference the earlier document published in mid February. Finally, if you don’t wish to take my word for it, please google and read the safety reviews for yourself. They are all publically available and I had nothing to do with any but one of them. Attempting to discredit my credentials is just camouflage for not being able to address the sound scientific reviews by hundreds of qualified scientists. Thanks to the Bangor Daily News for the opportunity to set the record straight.
So… your clarification shows that there was nothing false in the first opinion piece. You cou;d’ve made this exact point about other regulatory bodies without the ad hominem attacks on the academics. Strike that – you shoulv’e made that point without attacking the independent scientists! Instead, you have no credibility on the points Iand others raised above: Canada;s decision, the “relied heavily on 2 industry studies”, the “extremely close tyes with industry”, the lack of information on the reasoning behind a BPA ban on the FDA’s site (why didn’t you include a link to the site that is so easy to find??)
Your credentials do matter because you wrote this piece intending for readers to think that it represents FDA’s position. As if you still speak for your former employer, or you have insider information. A close reading of the Sentinel’s piece shows that 1) you emailed industry to ask about the miscarriage study to get information from them, but you never emailed the study authors who could have given you accurate information without the industry spin; 2) you emailed industry to get feedback on the CDC’s study, but you never emailed the scientists at the CDC; 3) industry helped write FDA’s position on BPA safety; 4) industry officials got several closed door meetings with you to talk about the science, but those opportunitieis were not afforded to academic scientists like Professor Fred vomSaal, the world renown expert on BPA; and 5) industry emailed YOU to get you prepared before studies were released that would challenge FDA’s position of ‘safety’. Oh, and that the safety evaluations was based on 2 studies, as stated in the first editorl. The Sentienel got those emails from a FOIA request. If there were errors in the reporting, why didn’t you clarify them then? Maybe because you were giving interviews to the Washington paper stating that the facts were true.
Revisionist history? We may have a governor that gets it wrong, but this kind of industry-speak can’t go unchallenged. Not in Maine.
Whoops! Reading more, I see that the Euro FDA (called EFSA there) also relied on only 2 industry funded studies. Seems like all the risk agencies that made the same decision and came to the same conclusion on BPA safety use the same pro-industry tactics!
http://www.pan-europe.info/Resources/Reports/Eu_pesticidefoodsafety.pdf
And officials on the Euro FDA also have conflicts of interst they did not disclose due to inappropriately close ties with industry
http://www.corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/publications/Conflicts_%20on_the_menu_final_0.pdf
Plus there was some minority opinion from a few of the EU countries stating that BPA has neuro-behavioral effects. And because of that, Denmark banned BPA in all food contact materials in products geared toward children.
Maybe that’s a better question. Let’s forget how many places say that BPA is safe. How many jurisdctions have banned BPA in products designed for children? Like the ban being considered in our state?
Mitchell Cheeseman is a shill for the chemical industry, and his job is to keep BPA on the market. His snide and inaccurate statements reveal his agenda, and reek of defensiveness too… Perhaps he knows that he’ll need to start defending a new chemical pet, because the writing is on the wall for BPA. It is only a matter of time before smart companies and law makers get this toxic hormone disruptor out of food and beverage applications, and instead use a safer alternative. Cheeseman is on a sinking ship. But while he earns huge money bailing it out, all of us pay the very real price with our health. Right now we’re dealing with economic & regulatory systems that place the burden of proof on real scientists like Dr Vandenberg, and on health advocates, and the people getting sick. This “chemicals are innocent until proven guilty” frame needs to change.
It would be a nice change to this subject if the discussion focussed on the facts rather than people.
1, Health Canada states:” The current dietary exposure to BPA through food packaging is not expected to pose a health risk to the general population, including newborns and young children.”
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/pubs/securit/bpa_survey-enquete-eng.php
2. FDA scientist have recently completed a 90 day feeding study on BPA and looked for numerous endocrine effects and found none.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22465602
3. A recent study by PNRL, FDA, CDC and funded by EPA showed that in human test subjects exposed to levels of BPA that was in the 95% of NHANES data from US population, showed no detectable levels of non-conjugated BPA in the blood – using 24 hour monitoring
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21705716
4. FDA is funding a large scale 2 year feeding trial of BPA in rats that should be the conclusive study on BPA. Tissue samples will be shared with academic scientists who have found effects in small scale, non-oral studies to see if they can find those effects in this larger scale, GLP, study. Once completed this should give everyone the definative answer on BPA.
5. In 2008, FDA performed a Draft Risk Assssment on BPA. They evaluated 249 studies (based on references). At that time they stated only that the 2 industry funded studies gave them the most utility of actually determining a safe reference dose (not that the determination of safety was only relied upon those 2 studies)
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/AC/08/briefing/2008-0038b1_01_03_FDA%20BPA%20Draft%20Assessment%20References%20List.pdf
6. On March 30, 2012 FDA replied to NRDC petion denying their request to ban BPA in all food contact applications. In that response FDA cited 57 refences in their response.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2008-P-0577-0007
7. EFSA considers more than 800 studies on BPA, to finalise opinion in September
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/cef20100713.htm
I think Mr. Cheeseman’s comments here should be peer-reviewed! First a citation problem: Point 2 includes a link that goes to a study about BPA levels in blood after administration, not a 90 day trial for effects on endocrine. Second, an incomplete/unbalanced information problem: if you click the link to point 3, it takes you to a paper that has been rebutted by Professor vom Saal: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22020768. For Point 5, Mr. Cheeseman is now playing with words. We “evaluated” lots of studies but “made our decisions” based on only two. Not sure how Dr. Vanddenberg’s statement that the BPA “safety assessment is based on two industry-funded studies” can possibly be considered a “blatant lie.” Cheeseman is playing semantics games here. We might not be able to understand the science the way you can, but we sure can assess the accuracy of words!!!
I asked for the facts on bans on BPA in childrens’ products. Anyone have those facts?? Here in Maine, we are considering a ban. It sounds a lot like the bans they have in Canada, in Denmark. Maybe like the ban in France? Anywhere else?
I think it is worth stating: Maybe we want to protect our children to a better degree than the FDA… maybe we don’t trust that the FDA has our best intersts at heart. Maybe the evidence about industry’s influence on regulatory decisions at the FDA, at the EPA, in European agencies is strong enough that we reject this false evidence.
About Point #3. The fact that Fred vom Saal has refuted another study that does not agree with his position is not science. Using that aproach I should quote Professor Richard Sharpe, Principal Investigator at the Independent Medical Research Center’s Center for Reproductive Health in Britain, and a member of the WHO (World Health Organisation)/FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation) “expert committee for evaluation of the health risks and research priorities on bisphenol A,” is that Teeguarden’s findings show “the majority of effects observed in animal studies are probably not relevant to humans because they involved much higher BPA exposures.”
“This is what I would term a classic study,” says Sharpe: “beautifully designed and executed and with clear cut results (that fit in well with the majority of published data) that carry with them fundamentally important implications.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2011/07/25/majestically-scientific-federal-study-on-bpa-has-stunning-findings-so-why-is-the-media-ignoring-it/
It is important to note the difference between a legislative ban versus a science based regulatory ban. There are several bans on BPA that have passed state and local government legislative bodies, but these were not based on any scientific reviews.
It is also important to note the difference in a decision on safety, and the determination of the safe dose level. I will try to be more clear as Noah_Man clearly missed the point. A determination of safety was based on several hundred studies. Then when a safety standard was needed you have to look at studies that clearly show effects and no effects so an establishe NOAEL can be determined. You use the NOAEL to make numerous additional safety margins and determine the safe level. Only the 2 industry funded studies provide that much detail, but the determination of safety was based on hundreds of studies.
I apoligize if I missed the citation for the FDA study. Dr. Doerge recently presented his work at the Tox Forum this summer and you can see a reference to that at:
http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OC/OfficeofScientificandMedicalPrograms/NCTR/WhatWeDo/NCTRPublications/ucm311862.htm
Now I’m totally confused. How could the determination for safety be based on hundreds of studies when most of the published studies show harm from BPA?? Or is it that they looked at those studies, rejected them (i.e. failed to use them in their assessment), and relied on the 2 industry studies?
There simply aren’t hundreds of studies that show that BPA is “safe”: According to Dr. vom Saal, of 231 studies investigating the harm of low dose exposure to Bisphenol A, 202 studies demonstrated harm, while 29 studies showed no evidence of harm. Of these 29 studies, 14 studies were funded by the chemical industry. Chemical industry funded studies have never determined that BPA shows evidence of harm. http://blogs.kentlaw.edu/islat/2009/09/what-if-our-perception-of-normal-exposure-is-skewed-analyzing-the-science-of-bpa.html
The fact that the FDA refutes vom Saal’s work is not science. The fact that industry refutes vomSaal’s work is not science. But the fact that leading BPA scientists are challenging this FDA study… isn’t that how science works? It is clear that Mr. Cheeseman doesn’t like Professor vom Saal. that’s probably because Dr. vom Saal has been one of the most vocal critics of the FDA since his studies in the 1990’s showing that BPA was a sex hormone and messed up the development of the prostate. But I thought Mr. Cheesemen didn’t want this to be a discussion of people… or did he mean he didn’t want the disucssion to be focused on him, and his ties to industry??
Want a good, free leacture from Professor vom Saal? This explains the science even for a science dummy like me! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgCleWt57ms&feature=related
It would be a
nice change to this subject if the discussion focused on the facts rather than
people.
1, Health
Canada states:” The current dietary exposure to BPA through food
packaging is not expected to pose a health risk to the general population,
including newborns and young children.”
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/pubs/securit/bpa_survey-enquete-eng.php
2. FDA
scientist have recently completed a 90 day feeding study on BPA and looked for
numerous endocrine effects and found none.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22465602
3. A recent
study by PNRL, FDA, CDC and funded by EPA showed that in human test subjects
exposed to levels of BPA that was in the 95% of NHANES data from US population,
showed no detectable levels of non-conjugated BPA in the blood – using 24 hour
monitoring
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21705716
4. FDA is
funding a large scale 2 year feeding trial of BPA in rats that should be the
conclusive study on BPA. Tissue samples will be shared with academic scientists
who have found effects in small scale, non-oral studies to see if they can find
those effects in this larger scale, GLP, study. Once completed this should give
everyone the definitive answer on BPA.
5. In 2008 in
FDA’s draft risk assessment on BPA, they referenced 249 studies they
evaluated. The determination of safety
was based on those 249 studies. The best
2 studies for actual determination of the safe dose level was from the 2
industry sponsored studies.
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/AC/08/briefing/2008-0038b1_01_03_FDA%20BPA%20Draft%20Assessment%20References%20List.pdf
6. EFSA
considers more than 800 studies on BPA, to finalise opinion in September
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/cef20100713.htm
Mr. Cheeseman, please stop double posting!