Earlier this month, Democratic Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts introduced a bill that would ban BPA from food and beverage containers cleverly titled the Ban Poisonous Additives Act of 2014. Angela Logomasini, a Senior Fellow at the Independent Women s Forum and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, co-founder of the Culture of Alarmism and co-editor of Safe Chemical Policy News wrote an opinion piece in Forbes discussing the price consumers will pay should this bill be approved.
She emphasizes the fact that BPA bans are a danger to public health, saying, Resins that line food containers made with BPA prevent the development of deadly pathogens in our food supply, protecting consumers from potentially deadly bacteria like E. coli. Because there aren t good alternatives to BPA resins, if passed into law, BPA bans could increase food spoilage and serious food-borne illnesses. And comprehensive review has found that BPA is safe, as declared by the U.S. FDA, governmental bodies in the European Union, Japan and Canada and the WHO.
The studies relied upon by the greens are poorly designed, small and inconclusive, relying on associations and failing to establish cause-and-effect relationships. Instead, researchers manipulate data to reach the conclusions that they deem favorable, in this case that BPA is harmful.
Logomasini concludes: Using phrases like linked to, suggestive, and consistent with to exaggerate weak and largely meaningless findings has become common practice among the anti-chemical alarmist trade. Unfortunately, lawmakers have fallen for this trickery. Unless they are stopped, consumers will end up paying the price.
Read the full piece here!
