BPA Ruling Flawed, Panel Says: FDA Ignored Scientific Evidence of Harm, Report Finds ... Washington Post October 29, 2008

[Guest guest]

BPA has been used in the manufacture of breast implants. . . Is it any wonder the children suffer?Please, please, please, contact your Congressman/woman and ask why the FDA isn't doing it's job to get products/devices containing these chemicals off the market. . . There have to be millions upon millions of people sick . . . with no knowledge of why they are sick. Ask why they are not studying the women and children who have already submitted MedWatch reports to find out why they are sick!The BPA industry is huge! . . . Their spokespeople will not let this issue go down easilyRogene

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803406.html?hpid=topnews BPA Ruling Flawed, Panel

Says

FDA Ignored Scientific Evidence of Harm, Report Finds By Annys Shin

Washington Post Staff

Writer Wednesday, October 29, 2008; A13 The Food and Drug Administration ignored scientific evidence and

used flawed methods when it determined that a chemical widely used in baby

bottles and in the lining of cans is not harmful, a scientific advisory panel

has found. In a highly critical report to be released today, the panel of

scientists from government and academia said the FDA did not take into

consideration scores of studies that have linked bisphenol A (BPA) to prostate

cancer, diabetes and other health problems in animals when it completed a draft

risk assessment of the chemical last month. The panel said the FDA didn't use

enough infant formula samples and didn't take into account variations among the

samples. Taking those studies into consideration, the panel concluded, the

FDA's margin of safety is "inadequate" and it recommended that the

agency redo its risk assessment. The panel is part of the Science Board, a

committee of advisers to the FDA commissioner. It was set up to review the

FDA's risk assessment of BPA. Many of the studies that the panel said the FDA ignored were

reviewed by the National Toxicology Program, which concluded in September that

it had "some concern" that BPA can affect brain and behavioral

development in infants and small children. Officials at FDA, which regulates the chemical's use in plastic

food containers, bottles, tableware and the plastic linings of food cans,

declined to comment last night. The report adds fuel to the debate over whether to ban the use of

BPA, which is used to harden plastic, particularly in baby bottles and cans of

liquid formula. Infants are considered more vulnerable to the health effects of

many chemicals. "The current levels of exposure are not safe," said

Janssen, a reproductive biologist with the Natural Resources Defense

Council, an environmental advocacy group. "We should get rid of it in food

containers." The American Chemistry Council, a trade group that represents BPA

manufacturers, said its members would comply with whatever the FDA decides to

do. "If the agency determines that existing margins of safety are

insufficient in infant applications, our member companies that manufacture BPA

will put processes in place to promptly phase out the use of materials

containing BPA in baby bottles and infant formula packaging," ACC

spokeswoman Harrington said. Retailers have already begun selling BPA-free baby bottles in

response to consumer concerns. This month,

Canada banned its use in baby

bottles. House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman D. Dingell

(D-Mich.) and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), as well as several state attorneys

general, have called on formula-makers to remove BPA from their products. The report likely will be fodder for critics of FDA who have

accused the agency of relying too heavily on industry-funded studies. But it is

likely to put to rest charges by environmental groups and public health

advocates that the panel's chairman, Philbert, co-director of the

University of Michigan 's

Risk

Science Center ,

was influenced by grants that his center received from Dow Chemical, a major

BPA manufacturer. Dow gave the center $15 million for research on dioxin. The

center also received $5 million from Gelman, a retired businessman who

has been vocal in his support for BPA. Philbert has said that those donations

did not influence his work or the center's.