Judge removes BPA from list of toxics
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
As part of a lawsuit against a California agency, a judge ordered Friday that Bisphenol-A, a controversial chemical used in plastics and metal food containers, be removed from the state's list of reproductive toxicants.
The chemical industry, which is seeking to convince Judge Raymond Cadei in Sacramento County Superior Court that the chemical does not cause birth defects, called the preliminary injunction a minor victory.
"We believe, based on the science, that it should not have been listed, and we look forward for a final resolution once the case is heard on its merits," said Kathryn St. John, a spokeswoman for the American Chemistry Council, a trade group that represents chemical manufacturers.
But Avinash Kar, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group in San Francisco, said the decision was a temporary setback. His group has pushed the state to place restrictions on BPA.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Judge-removes-BPA-from-list-of-toxics-4449358.php
Trascoli
(194 posts)it's not a new thing, lawyers know what it is. Sounds like Bisphenol-A got a bad rap.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)Trascoli
(194 posts)I didn't write the article, I'm not the OP. Just commenting.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)You said that BPA got a bad rap .... Meaning that it was unfairly restricted ...
On what basis did you conclude that BPA got a bad rap ? ....
Because a lawyer said so ? ....
SURELY there was some reason you decided BPA was unfairly judged to be 'bad' .... I am simply curious how you reached that conclusion ....
I like to be informed .... so please, tell me why ....
The first thing I did was Google (Bisphenol-A birth defects)
Guess what!
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=just-how-harmful-are-bisphenol-a-plastics
Yeah that is how it is.
1monster
(11,012 posts)I'd play on the safe side and avoid use until it is proven safe (or not).
But how does one avoid BPA? It is ubiquitous in our society.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)You know, how they mark the underside of plastic containers with an upside down triangle and a number.
When heating foods in the microwave, use glass or ceramic bowls, not plastic.
1monster
(11,012 posts)Occulus
(20,599 posts)There isn't a single American kitchen without glass or ceramic bowls.
Right?
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 20, 2013, 09:21 PM - Edit history (1)
Well, at least I was, good at understanding what I'm reading and that may not be true today but with your "Sounds like Bisphenol-A got a bad rap." line it sure sounds as though you think BPA is a GOOD thing.
I actually read the story you linked to (see above).
I thought the next few quotes from that article are a good indication of what the article actually means;
"Along with 36 other researchers, led by vom Saal, the group analyzed hundreds of government-funded studies and found that 90 percent had concluded BPA was a health risk. It was the dozen or so industry-funded studies, vom Saal says, that failed to replicate other BPA research."
This is runs completely counter to the industry funded studies;
"...according to a statement on www.bisphenol-a.org, the American Chemistry Council (which represents dozens of companies engaged in plastics manufacturing), the toxicology of BPA is well understood, and BPA exhibits toxic effects only at very high levels of exposure. Current U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidelines, based partly on these findings, set a safe daily exposure to BPA at 50 micrograms per kilogram of body weight.""
Now for the ways BPA can become toxic;
"...diet can alter responses to the chemical (BPA)."
and
" residual BPA can work itself free, especially when the plastic is heated, whether its a Nalgene bottle in the dishwasher, a food container in the microwave, or a test tube being sterilized in an autoclave."
"Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found unmetabolized BPA in the urine of 93 percent of more than 2,500 human subjects. According to the National Toxicology Program of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, BPA has also been detected in human blood and breast milk.
"..BPA (is not) like a traditional toxin...the toxicology of BPA is well understood, and BPA exhibits toxic effects only at very high levels of exposure. Current U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidelines, based partly on these findings, set a safe daily exposure to BPA at 50 micrograms per kilogram of body weight."
I guess you are correct, BPA is getting SLAMMED!
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Their sole motivation is the betterment of society.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Bisphenol-A is a known endocrine disruptor. Anything else is corporate spin. See: http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/
for plenty of information and links.
-app
KT2000
(20,544 posts)please do not rely upon this one article. BPA has powerful backers who fear liability for the damage it does.
Do your own research. Check Environmental Health Perspectives.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)breast development in men, heart problems,... that's going from memory. Babies young children and adolescents are especially sensitive.
BPA is being phased out of food packaging in several countries in Europe.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Your basis for believing the chemical was improperly listed is:
1. It's been out there for awhile, and;
2. Lawyers know what it is.
How CAN anyone can debate such watertight logic????
BRILLIANT!
defacto7
(13,485 posts)Who will profit from the decision and who won't? I tend to believe the side that has nothing monetary to gain. It's a cynical way to choose a position but unfortunately it seems the most likely to be true.
BPA is known to be a bad one. European countries are taking the opposite position and even tightening the rules of its use. Those chem companies are loosing ground around the world on the subject of BPA so they have even more to gain if they get America to make up for their other losses. I have read recently (sorry no link) that BPA has been found to be more of a problem than we thought it was. I can't recall the science resource so I won't pretend to be a reasonable source of the info. Maybe someone knows. I'd like to read it again.
Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)TRoN33
(769 posts)Set up the secret camera in the room and get to these pro-BPA lawyers to eat the foods from BPA-laced canned foods and see how they would respond to it when they realized that the foods are laced with the BPA?
Trascoli
(194 posts)BPA is nothing in comparison. If it was, where are the thread on the BOH? The BOH is the new mafia in the US
cprise
(8,445 posts)nt
silverweb
(16,402 posts)[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Oh, wait... I think we want a different expansion of this acronym.
The only chemical I can find that's also known as BOH is B-hydroxyethyl hydrazine, used to force fruiting of pineapples. But I'm not finding any controversy about it or what it might have to do with restaurants. Yet. No idea what Trascoli is talking about otherwise.
On edit: Oh, wait, wait, wait... I've got it! BOH is Board of Health!! Trascoli is calling the Board of Health the "new mafia" and blaming them for bad conditions in restaurants!
I think.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Or else just get established via a court settlement that it can stay on the list?
One day some authority says one thing, several weeks later another court or authority does another!
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)OK, I don't actually have a quote of him saying that, but he's probably said it.
The countries in Europe banned it years ago, but then again they don't have the influence of money in their political system, or could it be the judge might have some personal interest in this, let's say stocks. I am just saying if it smells funny there is a reason.
watoos
(7,142 posts)have banned BPA, or at least banned it from use in plastic baby bottles.
paleotn
(17,781 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)paleotn
(17,781 posts)....it's not about human safety or good science. It's as always...all about the money.
Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)of dreamy, cozy world where we were not subject to large corporations that, (should I use who now?) are not subject to the same accountability to the species, planet, worker, et al, that they are to their shareholders, (owners) concerning profits?
There are already thousands of direct threats to our health and the continuation of a viable biosphere in respect to all other lifeforms on this planet.
As we slowly come to awareness of these short and long-term, toxic influxes into our bodies, our children and our eco-system, we stand to challenge well-entrenched industries that have more money, power and influence on the whole process and are the "deciders" for this current system.
It is clear that, if we can't change that and reverse the trend, bring accountability, and add a benefit/detriment factor alongside corporate profits there is no reason to have optimism about the outcome.
Profit-only economics is now a bigger threat to all life than many other dangers we face when you consider it all-total and over an extended period.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--how is it that a judge gets to decide what is toxic and what is not?
valerief
(53,235 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)on point
(2,506 posts)Sarcasm
But true.
I stopped buying anything with BPA if I can. Plastic bottles, canned goods - gone.
I do want to see this bannedanyway to get it out of the environment.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Read 'em and weep.
http://www.metnews.com/articles/appt051502.htm