NY Times on BPA - how long can this boxing match go on?

Yesterday, the New York Times (NYT) published a story on the Battle of the BPA Experts, titled, "In Feast of Data on BPA Plastic, No Final Answer". This battle, like the one between Godzilla and King Kong, involves powerful minds and powerful interests.  On one side, independent researchers and government science experts are lining up with their data and assessments. On the other, the chemical industry. Rrrooooowwwwrr. Let the Wild Rumpus Begin!

Round 1: Industry comes out of the corner swinging with both fists. They conduct studies on strains of mice that are not responsive to the effects of BPA, and then declare that BPA had no adverse effects at low doses.

The crowd does not go wild.

Round 2: In 2007, a consensus statement of 38 independent (non-industry) scientists concluded that current levels of exposure to BPA in the general population are concerning for a wide array of potential health effects based on findings of low dose animal studies. The panel noted that adverse effects observed in experimental animals exposed to low doses of BPA parallel recent trends in human diseases, including: prostate and breast cancer, uro-genital abnormalities in male babies, a decline in semen quality in men, early onset of puberty in girls, metabolic disorders including insulin resistant (type 2) diabetes and obesity, and neurobehavioral problems such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

The crowd screams with anger, and runs to the concession stands to switch the BPA-containing food and beverage containers for non-plastic ones!

Round 3: Government experts at the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), part of the National Institutes of Health, issued a report in 2008 expressing concern about the adverse effects of BPA exposure on development of the prostate gland and brain in fetuses, infants, and children at current levels of exposure in the human population. Kapow!

Round 4: In 2009, the American Chemistry Council says that there is still no clear scientific consensus about the health harms of BPA because its own studies still report that it is safe. In other words, as long as the chemical industry can't find a problem, then no one else should find one either.

Industry goes back to its corner looking battered, bruised and bloodied, but still smiling.

Round 5: From the sidelines, retailers are putting their money down on the independent experts: CVS, Kmart, Kroger, Rite Aid, Safeway, Sears, Toys “R” Us, Babies “R” Us, Wal-Mart, Wegmans Foods and Whole Foods are phasing out BPA in baby bottles. And, States are getting into the action too: The city of Chicago, and the states of Connecticut, Minnesota, Maryland, New York, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin have banned BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups. Connecticut and Vermont have banned BPA from infant formula and baby food jars, as well as reusable food and beverage containers.

The referee calls the fight. The chemical industry is lying on the mat, gasping for air, and sipping water from its BPA-laden polycarbonate water bottle. "It's safe, I tell ya!" They are still trying to get up; an ambulance is called.

You decide. You make the purchasing decisions for your family. Will you choose BPA or no BPA in your food and beverage containers? Vote with your dollars - that's a language that even industry can understand.