creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
John Stossel
John Stossel
20 Aug 2014
Policing a Riot

Libertarians warned for years that government is force, that government always grows and that America's … Read More.

13 Aug 2014
Mindless Drones

Drones — unmanned flying machines — will soon fill our skies. They conjure up fears, especially … Read More.

6 Aug 2014
Patrolmen Without Borders

If I drive across a U.S. border, I expect to stop at a Border Patrol checkpoint. But imagine driving to the … Read More.

Plastic Water Bottles Won't Hurt You

Comment

Canada has announced it will ban the chemical bisphenol A — known as BPA — which is used to make plastic water and baby bottles.

The head of the Canadian environmental group Environmental Defence is thrilled:

"Kudos to the federal government. ... We look forward to seeing BPA legally designated as 'toxic' as soon as possible."

But the evidence doesn't actually show that BPA is toxic. Europe's equivalent of the FDA concluded: "(T)he data currently available do not provide convincing evidence of neurobehavioral toxicity."

Richard Sharpe of the University of Edinburgh explained:

"Some early animal studies produced results suggesting the possibility of adverse effects relevant to human health, but much larger, carefully designed studies in several laboratories have failed to confirm these initial studies."

The initial studies injected BPA into animals, rather than giving it by mouth, which is how we humans are exposed. Since BPA degrades in the gut when we consume it, very little gets to our cells.

Yet many people are sure BPA causes not only breast and prostate cancer but also obesity, diabetes, attention deficit hyperactivity, autism, liver disease, ovarian disease, disease of the uterus, low sperm count and heart disease. When a chemical is said to cause so many disorders, that's a sure sign of unscientific hysteria. But a documentary called "Tapped" says it's true. It quotes experts claiming "BPA may be one of the most potent toxic chemicals known to man."

Nonsense. Not only is there no good evidence that BPA locked into plastic can hurt people, it actually saves lives by stopping botulism.

"Since BPA became commonplace in the lining of canned goods, food-borne illness from canned foods — including botulism — has virtually disappeared," says the American Council of Science and Health.

You never hear the good news about BPA in the mainstream media. Fear-mongering gets better ratings.

"Tapped" also asserts that other dangerous chemicals poison bottled water. In the film, toxicologist Dr. Stephen King says that we should be "horrified" at all those chemicals. But when we called King, he sent us a study saying "testing" reveals a surprising array of chemical contaminants in every bottled water brand analyzed — at levels no different from those routinely found in tap water.

"Tapped" claims cancer rates are up because of these chemicals, but that's another myth. Cancer incidence rates are flat. They would have declined if not for new screening methods. Life spans are up, too.

Not every mom has fallen for the BPA scare. "Truth or Scare," the blog of a woman who calls herself "Junk Science Mom," recently called out one of the people behind the anti-BPA campaign: scaremonger/hustler David Fenton:

"If you believe what you see and hear in the media, those fighting an unnecessary battle against bisphenol-A (BPA) are altruistic individuals concerned about health and safety. ... But there is an ugly truth behind the scenes that you will never hear about in the media. Greed, propaganda, political agendas, profits, lies and scams. And it all can be tied to one person and one powerful PR firm. David Fenton and Fenton Communications. ...

"He is the puppet master, and we moms are his puppets. He orchestrates the scare, and we, being fearful for our children, unknowingly carry out his plan for him. He comes out a winner, and we are duped into wasting our time, money and energy fighting a battle that never needed to be fought."

Good for you, Junk Science Mom, whoever you are. "Truth or Scare" is a wonderful addition to the debate.

But if BPA isn't toxic, why will Canada ban it? And why have Connecticut and Minnesota already done so? Because scientifically illiterate legislators are quick to panic. When the media sensationalize, legislators respond. Two FDA scientists — Ronald J. Lorentzen and David G. Hattan —[AZ1] note the bias toward sensationalism: "The disquieting public invocations made by some ... about the perils of exposure (to BPA) ... galvanize the public debate."

When even notoriously risk-averse FDA scientists speak out against the BPA panic, the scaremongers must have gone absurdly far.

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at <a href="http://www.johnstossel.com" <http://www.johnstossel.com>>johnstossel.com</a>. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

[AZ1]



Comments

3 Comments | Post Comment
Very thoughtful column. Exposing scare stories by the general media can help readers discern the quality of articles they read.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Bill S
Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:37 PM
John: You might have mentioned that the ASCH is heavily funded by the food and beverage industry. Of even more importance, you might have pointed out that your brother sits on the group's board. I'll therefore take your praise of their bona fides with, yes, a grain of salt.
Comment: #2
Posted by: jack purdy
Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:04 AM
I think John's point is that people shouldn't buy into the sensationalism. Rather than jump on the first, poorly executed study that injects BPA directly into the bloodstream of rats at concentrations higher than any human could absorb within their lifetime, maybe we should wait for more scientific results.

Saccharin used to be thought of as a cancer-causing agent. In fact, many countries quickly moved to outlaw it. However, cooler heads prevailed, we now know it poses minimal risks, if any. Most countries have removed any bans they previously had against the artificial sweetener. I have a feeling in the future we'll look upon BPA as kindly as we do saccharin.

Then again, we've had just the opposite happen with many other products: i.e. lead paint and asbestos. Heck, watches and clocks used to be painted with uranium/radium because it glowed.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Nathan H.
Mon Nov 1, 2010 10:43 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
John Stossel
Aug. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 25 Aug 2014
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 22 Aug 2014
David Harsanyi
David HarsanyiUpdated 22 Aug 2014

30 Jan 2013 Obama Is Not King

20 Oct 2010 Public-Sector Unions Choke Taxpayers

11 May 2011 Ron Paul: Less Lonely These Days