Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

alp227

(31,961 posts)
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 12:10 AM Apr 2013

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

38 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Judge removes BPA from list of toxics (Original Post) alp227 Apr 2013 OP
I assume Bisphenol-A has been out there for a while Trascoli Apr 2013 #1
Bad rap? On what do you base that conclusion? tkmorris Apr 2013 #2
Don't yell at me Trascoli Apr 2013 #4
Well wait - You made an assertive statement ... Trajan Apr 2013 #7
As am I Crow73 Apr 2013 #20
Rather damning data gathered there. 1monster Apr 2013 #29
Avoid plastics # 3, 6, and 7 Quantess Apr 2013 #30
Thanks for the heads up. 1monster Apr 2013 #32
Because everyone has them. Occulus Apr 2013 #36
What's your point? Quantess Apr 2013 #38
I am; greiner3 Apr 2013 #34
Corporations would never, ever knowingly do anything to harm us RufusTFirefly Apr 2013 #10
Bisphenol-A is a known endocrine disruptor. appal_jack Apr 2013 #3
BPA has not gotten a bad rap. KT2000 Apr 2013 #6
Googling is a better choice than making assumptions about things you know nothing about. DeSwiss Apr 2013 #8
No actually, it's been linked to cancer, hormone disturbances, Quantess Apr 2013 #28
Lemme get this straight.... tabasco Apr 2013 #37
I just ask myself... defacto7 Apr 2013 #5
K&R DeSwiss Apr 2013 #9
+1 Newest Reality Apr 2013 #21
Shouldn't Judge Raymond Cadei... TRoN33 Apr 2013 #11
Do you eat at Restaurants? Trascoli Apr 2013 #12
What is BOH? cprise Apr 2013 #13
Bank of Hawaii or Bad Obstetrics History. silverweb Apr 2013 #15
Didn't this just get added to the list of toxicants? truedelphi Apr 2013 #14
"You don't have to pass an IQ test to be appointed to Judge" - Judge Raymond Cadei Ash_F Apr 2013 #16
WHY mtasselin Apr 2013 #17
I do believe that several countries watoos Apr 2013 #18
The EU banned it. paleotn Apr 2013 #22
Uh... I'll stick with my no BPA water bottles, thank you very much. nt onehandle Apr 2013 #19
Once again..... paleotn Apr 2013 #23
Wouldn't it be some sort Newest Reality Apr 2013 #24
well said marions ghost Apr 2013 #25
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ nt valerief Apr 2013 #27
Whore criminal judge thug!!!!! nt valerief Apr 2013 #26
That's OK, I've removed BPA from my list of permissible food products.... on point Apr 2013 #31
YAwn ...another corporate owned judge ...normal everyday Gov operations continue. L0oniX Apr 2013 #33
A Gray Davis appointee. Le Taz Hot Apr 2013 #35
 

Trascoli

(194 posts)
1. I assume Bisphenol-A has been out there for a while
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 12:15 AM
Apr 2013

it's not a new thing, lawyers know what it is. Sounds like Bisphenol-A got a bad rap.

 

Trajan

(19,089 posts)
7. Well wait - You made an assertive statement ...
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 12:38 AM
Apr 2013

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 ....

1monster

(11,012 posts)
29. Rather damning data gathered there.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 11:58 AM
Apr 2013

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)
30. Avoid plastics # 3, 6, and 7
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 12:17 PM
Apr 2013

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.

Occulus

(20,599 posts)
36. Because everyone has them.
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 07:11 AM
Apr 2013

There isn't a single American kitchen without glass or ceramic bowls.

Right?

 

greiner3

(5,214 posts)
34. I am;
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 08:37 PM
Apr 2013

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 it’s 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)
10. Corporations would never, ever knowingly do anything to harm us
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 12:51 AM
Apr 2013

Their sole motivation is the betterment of society.










 

appal_jack

(3,813 posts)
3. Bisphenol-A is a known endocrine disruptor.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 12:22 AM
Apr 2013

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)
6. BPA has not gotten a bad rap.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 12:36 AM
Apr 2013

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.

Quantess

(27,630 posts)
28. No actually, it's been linked to cancer, hormone disturbances,
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 09:59 AM
Apr 2013

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)
37. Lemme get this straight....
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 07:25 AM
Apr 2013

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)
5. I just ask myself...
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 12:35 AM
Apr 2013

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.

 

TRoN33

(769 posts)
11. Shouldn't Judge Raymond Cadei...
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 01:09 AM
Apr 2013

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)
12. Do you eat at Restaurants?
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 01:30 AM
Apr 2013

BPA is nothing in comparison. If it was, where are the thread on the BOH? The BOH is the new mafia in the US

silverweb

(16,402 posts)
15. Bank of Hawaii or Bad Obstetrics History.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 04:13 AM
Apr 2013

[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)
14. Didn't this just get added to the list of toxicants?
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 03:38 AM
Apr 2013

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)
16. "You don't have to pass an IQ test to be appointed to Judge" - Judge Raymond Cadei
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 04:28 AM
Apr 2013

OK, I don't actually have a quote of him saying that, but he's probably said it.

mtasselin

(666 posts)
17. WHY
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 08:04 AM
Apr 2013

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)
18. I do believe that several countries
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 08:05 AM
Apr 2013

have banned BPA, or at least banned it from use in plastic baby bottles.

paleotn

(17,781 posts)
23. Once again.....
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 09:13 AM
Apr 2013

....it's not about human safety or good science. It's as always...all about the money.

Newest Reality

(12,712 posts)
24. Wouldn't it be some sort
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 09:14 AM
Apr 2013

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.

on point

(2,506 posts)
31. That's OK, I've removed BPA from my list of permissible food products....
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 01:02 PM
Apr 2013

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.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Judge removes BPA from li...