A Case of the Slows

An effort to ban the controversial chemical bisphenol A from baby bottles and sippy cups was on the verge of failure in the Senate Thursday, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) blamed the chemical industry. The industry, she said, had used its clout to block her attempt to insert a ban into a food safety bill.

The good news is that the food safety bill likely will pass with an unusual amount of bipartisan support. The bill would boost the number of agricultural inspections and mandate better record-keeping.

But we agree with Feinstein, who said on the Senate floor Wednesday: "I don't understand how a chemical group would oppose taking a chemical which, at the very least, may impact the endocrine systems of infants (out of products) because they want to make money on it."

There is no logical reason not to ban BPA from products used by the very young. Senators should summon the will to ban the chemical. Dozens of studies over many years have indicated that exposure to the chemical, an endocrine disruptor, may lead to health problems.

Children appear to be especially vulnerable. BPA has been found in the urine of 93 percent of Americans.

Canada, which has been far more aggressive than the United States, published a final order in October adding the chemical to its list of toxic substances. But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has so far been unwilling to go beyond its January assessment when it expressed "some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior and prostate gland in fetuses, infants and young children."

Feinstein's amendment would have banned BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups, required the FDA to issue a revised safety assessment on BPA by Dec. 1, 2012, and included a clause to allow states to enact their own legislation.

The American Chemistry Council objected, saying in a statement: "We do not support any amendment to the Food Safety Bill that would revoke or impede FDA's authority."

But when the FDA is wrong — or has the slows — it's time to give the agency a push. That's what Feinstein's amendment would have done. We urge her to keep trying.

REPRINTED FROM THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM