While reading through recent news articles and editorials on medical insurance reform issues, preparing to comment on this important issue, a contribution to the San Francisco Chronicle’s Sunday opinion section caught my eye. The title of the piece was “SF should drop ban on certain toys.”
What? San Francisco is outlawing toys?
It was soon apparent that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors had not Scrooged out. Instead, they had, as a result of parent activism, outlawed the sale of toys that contain chemicals believed to cause harm, in particular a chemical called bisphenol A or BPA.
The author of the article, Gilbert Ross, is medical director for a non-profit named the American Council on Science and Health. He argues that San Francisco’s concerns are based on bad science and invites readers to his organization’s website for a review of the research.
So I went there. One and only one piece of research is cited: a literature review paid for by Ross’s organization. Otherwise, the “review” consists of unsubstantiated claims about the weakness of BPA science and in particular the science about the health risks from low dose exposures to BPA and other endocrine disruptors. Because, as you have no doubt guessed, the American Council on Science and Health is a notorious shill for the chemical manufacturers who have filed suit against San Francisco.
In contrast, the August 2005 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives includes a thorough review of BPA research and finds considerable cause for alarm. In examining this research, the authors of the article note that there is a clear divide between independently funded and industry funded studies: 90% of independently funded studies found an effect of low dose BPA exposure while none of the industry funded studies found an effect.
OK. No surprise there. Denial and doubt-mongering from made-up science paid for by business increase in proportion to the financial stake. Unfortunately, you and I have to wade through this nonsense because the mainstream media and government feel compelled to be, in what is now a heavily abused phrase, “fair and balanced.”
Why is this a big deal?
Bisphenol A is literally everywhere. The CDC estimates that 95% of people in the United States have a measurable amount in their body. It is a chemical that hardens plastics used to line cans and food containers. It’s used to make toys that babies will inevitably chew on. It’s used to make baby bottles that babies drink from. When BPA-containing plastics are exposed to acidic or alkaline environments, the leaching of BPA accelerates. Heat and repeated washing do the same thing. One of the biggest sources of BPA is drinking water where landfills containing plastics (including what’s in electronic circuit boards) release BPA into surface and ground water.
So it’s a risk. In principle, we accept those risks because of the wonderful things BPA does for us. Do we need the wonderful things BPA does for us? No. There are alternatives, even though the alternatives might mean living differently. But as long as money is involved, there will be lies masquerading as science about the dangers of BPA, about the dangers of endocrine disruptors, about the dangers of materials industry finds useful in making the commodities it’s convinced us we need, the commodities it’s convinced us we can’t live without.
It’s not enough to ban some toys. We need to choose, to create safe alternatives.
