Natural Society
Mike Barrett
It was reported not too long ago that the Food and Drug Administration would make a decision on the banning of the endocrine-disrupting chemical bisphenol-A (BPA). Now, the agency has finally come to a decision, and unsurprisingly, it has decided that there is not enough scientific evidence supporting for the ban of BPA – that is to say, BPA will not be banned from use in food products, plastic packaging, and personal care products.
On Friday the agency made the decision due to lack of scientific evidence to justify the new restrictions, despite tons of evidence showcasing BPAs dangers. The FDA’s problem? Much of the research was performed using mice, and so they claimed that the findings don’t relate to humans.
While the FDA continues to fall behind many nations in the ban due to ‘lack of scientific evidence’, it seems that the agency secretly doesn’t want the ban altogether. The recent decision made by the FDA was prompted only due to a lawsuit against it after they failed to respond to petition requesting the ban. It took the FDA more than 180 days to respond to the National Resources Defense Council’s petition, which is surpassing a deadline it must reach regarding response to petitions.
BPA has been shown to prompt hyperactivity and depression in young girls, while also being linked to breast cancer in more than 130 studies. Infertility and fertility defects are also caused by BPA exposure. The chemical is used so widely that it has been found in the urine of nearly 93 percent of Americans, with one study finding that eating canned soup can spike urinary bisphenol-A levels by 1,200 percent compared to fresh soup.
Mike Barrett
On Friday the agency made the decision due to lack of scientific evidence to justify the new restrictions, despite tons of evidence showcasing BPAs dangers. The FDA’s problem? Much of the research was performed using mice, and so they claimed that the findings don’t relate to humans.
“While evidence from some studies have raised questions as to whether BPA may be associated with a variety of health effects, there remain serious questions about these studies, particularly as they relate to humans,” the FDA says.But it seems that many other nations and companies seem to disagree with the FDA, in that they have already taken action in banning or removing the chemical from use. Canada banned BPA from baby bottles in 2007, while the European Union, Turkey, and other countries banned BPA from baby bottled in 2008. What’s more, various companies such as Toys “R” Us and even Walmart claimed to have discontinued use of BPA in children’s items.
While the FDA continues to fall behind many nations in the ban due to ‘lack of scientific evidence’, it seems that the agency secretly doesn’t want the ban altogether. The recent decision made by the FDA was prompted only due to a lawsuit against it after they failed to respond to petition requesting the ban. It took the FDA more than 180 days to respond to the National Resources Defense Council’s petition, which is surpassing a deadline it must reach regarding response to petitions.
BPA has been shown to prompt hyperactivity and depression in young girls, while also being linked to breast cancer in more than 130 studies. Infertility and fertility defects are also caused by BPA exposure. The chemical is used so widely that it has been found in the urine of nearly 93 percent of Americans, with one study finding that eating canned soup can spike urinary bisphenol-A levels by 1,200 percent compared to fresh soup.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment