National BPA ban fails due to industry pressure
In mid November, the federal government got closer than it's ever been to a ban on Bisphenol-A (BPA) in baby bottles and sippy cups -- and failed.
The amendment's sponsor was Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). She had brokered an agreement between many in the Senate -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- and had obtained agreement from important trade associations like the Grocery Manufacturers association to add a BPA amendment to the Food Safety Modernization Act (a bill which is addressing food recalls and tainted products).
While the Food Safety Bill is continuing to be pushed through, it will be without the BPA amendment.
Though Senator Feinstein had reached a compromise with Senate Republicans and the amendment looked well on its way to inclusion, strong last minute pressure from the American Chemistry Council (ACC) caused the amendment's votes to fall.
The ACC is an industry trade association representing the nation's largest chemical companies. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence showing that BPA is a toxic chemical which can have health effects at extremely low exposure levels (especially for vulnerable populations like pregnant women, babies and children), the ACC continues to state publicly that the chemical is safe.While BPA has been banned in seven states, industry pressure has caused a California ban to fail. The industry is clearly fighting hard against making changes that would benefit the health of consumers.
From Senator Feinstein's address on the Senate floor:
Industry continues to insist that BPA is not harmful. But one study shows us why we should be skeptical about research funded by the chemical industry. In 2006, the journal Environmental Research published an article comparing the results of government funded studies on BPA to BPA studies funded by industry.
The difference is stark. Ninety-two percent of the government- funded studies found that exposure to BPA caused health problems. Overwhelmingly, government studies found harm.
By the time Senator Feinstein addressed the Senate, she knew that the amendment was lost. However, that did not stop her from taking time to talk about the importance of banning BPA, and her disappointment that the amendment would fail. Here's more from her speech:
This battle may be lost, but, rest assured, I do not intend to quit. I have a deep abiding concern regarding the presence of toxins and chemicals with no testing in all kinds of products and all kinds of solutions that build up in our bodies. There is no precautionary standard in this country when it comes to chemicals.
You have to prove that a chemical is harmful before that chemical can be banned. But the evidence against BPA is mounting and especially its harmful effects on babies and children who are still developing.
Here is the argument. Here is what BPA is. It is synthetic estrogen. It is a hormone disruptor. It interferes with how the hormones work in the body, and this chemical is used in thousands of consumer products. It is used to harden plastics, line tin cans, and even make CDs. It is even used to coat airline tickets and grocery store receipts. It is one of the most pervasive chemicals in modern life.
Despite the loss of this amendment, the American people can still vote with their pocketbooks by refusing to buy products made with BPA. Ask the question in your grocery store. Go where they are not sold. Buy the products that do not use BPA. Public knowledge and awareness is important.
In Massachusetts the Department of Public Health will be deciding on a BPA regulation on December 15th and we can be certain that the ACC and others are working to stop that ban from going forward as well. Across the country, individuals and organzations are channel our disappointment by taking action.
Take Action: send a letter to Brian Ferguson, ACC Board Chair (and CEO of Eastman Chemical Company), and Cal Dooley, President and CEO of the ACC, expressing your outrage with the ACC for placing the profits of giant chemical companies ahead of our children's health.
