Thursday, October 9, 2008

The FDA says what?

Poor Food & Drug Administration. Underfunded, understaffed and overburdened. Perhaps that's why it's often advisable to believe the exact opposite of what the FDA tells you.

The FDA says, for example, that there is a lack of evidence suggesting that plastics ingredient and endocrine disruptor bisphenol-A (BPA) can cause harm at common levels of exposure, and therefore should be recognized as safe. (Apparently the people who can up with tnis particular "if, then" formula did not pay enough attention to their logic lessons in school -- lack of proof of danger is not proof of safety, and that's what the FDA and the American Chemistry Council have been implying.)

Meanwhile, the federal National Toxicology Program has found that it's reasonable to be worried that BPA poses dangers to children and the matter needs further research. A study published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences finds that the presence of BPA in the body makes it harder to effectively treat breast cancer.

What's so hard for the FDA about saying, "Caution is warranted"? And why are the American Chemistry Council's members so tied to BPA that they don't want to make alternative plastics? Isn't ingenuity supposed to be part of that science?

No comments: