Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
May 22, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Czeslaw Milosz: A Life

Truthdig Bazaar more items

Ear to the Ground
Email this item Print this item

FDA Concerned Over BPA

Posted on Jan 16, 2010
Flickr /

The Nalgene company is phasing BPA plastics out of its water bottles, but plastics in many objects in the U.S. marketplace still contain the BPA component.

The Food and Drug Administration is expressing concern over findings that BPA—or bisphenol-A, a ubiquitous component in plastics and packaging that the agency declared safe in 2008—may actually have harmful effects on the brains of children and the prostates of boys. —JCL

The New York Times:

In a shift of position, the Food and Drug Administration is expressing concerns about possible health risks from bisphenol-A, or BPA, a widely used component of plastic bottles and food packaging that it declared safe in 2008.

The agency said Friday that it had “some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children,” and would join other federal health agencies in studying the chemical in both animals and humans.

The action is another example of the drug agency under the Obama administration becoming far more aggressive in taking hard looks at what it sees as threats to public health. In recent months, the agency has stepped up its oversight of food safety and has promised to tighten approval standards for medical devices.

Concerns about BPA are based on studies that have found harmful effects in animals, and on the recognition that the chemical seeps into food and baby formula, and that nearly everyone is exposed to it, starting in the womb.

Read more


Watch a selection of Wibbitz videos based on Truthdig stories:

Get a book from one of our contributors in the Truthdig Bazaar.

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every day.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments
DieDaily's avatar

By DieDaily, January 17, 2010 at 8:15 am Link to this comment

Wow, the FDA is backing off on one of it’s frauds? Surprising! I guess there must be an even more toxic type of new plastic that’s cheaper to make that a better paying lobbyist is currently touting. Yawn.

Report this

By omop, January 17, 2010 at 8:06 am Link to this comment

Another in an un-ending FDA routines:-

  In order for the FDA to determine if Monsanto’s growth hormones were safe
or not, Monsanto was required to submit a scientific report on that topic.

Margaret Miller, one of Monsanto’s researchers put the report together.
Shortly before the report submission, Miller left Monsanto and was hired by the
FDA. Her first job for the FDA was to determine whether or not to approve the
report she wrote for Monsanto.

In short, Monsanto approved its own report. Assisting Miller was another
former Monsanto researcher, Susan Sechen. Deciding whether or not rBGH-
derived milk should be labeled fell under the jurisdiction of another FDA
official, Michael Taylor, who previously worked as a lawyer for Monsanto.

“Excerpt from Organics versus Monsanto”.

Report this

By samosamo, January 16, 2010 at 7:51 pm Link to this comment

As that wonderful commercial from a few years back touting the
greatness of plastics and all the good that has been done with it
has helped humans so much just really rings hollow just like
what a lot of ‘technology’ does.

And the craziness that the BPA has not been studied as should
have been only enforces the greed of using things without
knowing what may escape notice.

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook