FDA got it wrong. Here's why.

By now you may have heard about the Food and Drug Administration's draft assessment of bisphenol A, which says that the known endocrine disruptor poses no health risk.

They got it wrong. My colleagues put it much more judiciously when they wrote EWG Questions FDA Verdict on Plastic Chemical. They went on to list all the reasons why we question the report. I thought I'd parse that out a little bit for you here.

1. The FDA review only examined studies that fed lab animals large amounts of BPA and looked for signs of obvious poisoning. Scientists believe that it's low levels of BPA, early on in brain development, that pose a risk for long-term damage. FDA relied on studies that completely miss the mark.
2. Oh yeah, those studies FDA did look at? They were all funded by the chemical industry.
3. The FDA review ignored more than 100 studies, including many funded by the government's own National Toxicology Program, that demonstrate that BPA is toxic at low levels.
4. FDA claims that we'd have to get 2,000 times the amount of BPA we're now exposed to before we'd see any ill effects, but if they'd looked at the low-dose studies they'd see that low doses may be exactly where the danger is.
5. On top of all that, FDA didn't even get infant exposure levels right. They underestimate BPA exposure for the smallest and hungriest babies, and they amount of BPA they assume babies are getting in formula is lower than what babies are probably actually getting.

I'm not sure why this is so complicated. It's a synthetic hormone. It's in our food. Why wouldn't the government want us to lower our exposure?

So, FDA is encouraging parents to continue exposing their children to BPA, even though safer alternatives exist. What do you think? Are you surprised, or is this business as usual for the government? Will you be switching back to BPA-laden baby bottles?

Top photo by Youkeo.