Here is yet another example of the media vastly mischaracterizing the results of a scientific study: While the data show no relationship between levels of BPA (bisphenol-A) and heart disease, a new report is actually being spun in the news under headlines that suggest the opposite, such as BPA chemical may be tied to heart disease.
Researchers in the UK, in a study published in the journal Circulation, measured levels of BPA in participants who did not have heart disease, using a single urine sample for each participant. They then tracked these participants for 10 years, and compared data for 758 patients who developed coronary artery disease over the course of this follow-up to 861 patients who did not. The researchers did indeed find that higher levels of BPA from the initial urine analysis were correlated with a slightly higher rate of cardiovascular disease. But when they controlled for other factors that influence heart disease, such as blood pressure, exercise, social class, and exercise, the already weak link between BPA and heart disease disappeared.
Yet the study s lead author comments as if a link was found: There s always the possibility it s not BPA that explains these findings, but now that we ve found it three times, we need to get more data from humans, he says. The media, in its reporting on the study, has generally taken up this same viewpoint, misleading readers into thinking that the study showed a connection between BPA and heart disease, even though it did not.
This study did not find any significant association when other factors were controlled for, explains ACSH s Dr. Gilbert Ross. So what this study found is that there is no relationship between BPA levels in a single urine sample and developing heart disease. Yet for some inexplicable reason, the media insists on claiming the opposite. How can the public become informed on the health risks (or lack thereof) of BPA when they are bombarded with such unscientific reporting?
ACSH s Dr. Josh Bloom points out that this sort of scenario plays out constantly in the press. Between the public s general lack of knowledge about chemistry and science, a naive or ideologically biased media, and the very sophisticated public-relations techniques of environmental groups activist groups that pretend they want to protect the earth, but are really seeking attention and funding it seems very unlikely that the truth will ever revealed about these matters. This is simply PR and scare tactics being very effectively used.
