Come on FDA, get with the program. CA is banning BPA’s!


http://www.ewg.org/BPA/newsrelease/CA-Senate-Votes-to-Ban-Bisphenol-A-in-Baby-Food-and-Beverage-Products

“Today the California state Senate passed the Toxics-Free Babies and Toddlers Act (SB 797), which would ban bisphenol A, or BPA, from food and drink containers designed for children ages three and younger….The vote follows media reports of notes leaked from a May 28 meeting of BPA industry representatives, during which these representatives discussed plans to thwart the California legislation by “befriending people that are able to manipulate the legislative process.”The bill’s advocates see the Senate vote as not only a vote for kids’ safety, but also a vote against the BPA industry’s tactics. “Senators got an ear-full from BPA industry lobbyists, but ultimately decided that the science against BPA is just too strong, and that kids had to come before lobbyists,” said Gretchen Lee Salter, policy manager at the Breast Cancer Fund.”   CONTACT: Jovana Ruzicic, Environmental Working Group, 202-939-9144, jovana@ewg.org Shannon Coughlin, 415-346-8223 x14 / 415-336-2246 cell, scoughlin@breastcancerfund.orgFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 2, 2009

Good for them!

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Come on FDA, get with the program. CA is banning BPA’s!

    • I am not a scientist, nor do I claim to be. I am a mom that expresses her opinions…
      That said, I feel there is a risk from BPA’s, which are recognized as being endocrine disruptors. I would prefer to err on the side of caution, and if several studies, by reputable scientific organizations say BPA’s “may pose a risk”, I think until we are 100% certain they are safe should not be widely used.

      While some people may find stats.org a reputable source, I do not. They lean a little too far to the right as far as their major financial contributors for my taste. They also claim “”secondhand smoke is more of a nuisance that health risk” I disagree.he STATS website did not list funding sources as of 2008 but states that “we do not take money from industry or industry-related groups”.[9] However, Media Transparency lists startup funding for STATS as having come from conservative funders including the John M. Olin Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation and the William H. Donner Foundation. Other funders include Richard Mellon Scaife’s Carthage Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation and the Castle Rock Foundation. Media Transparency identifies the group as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005.[10]

      In its 2006 annual return — which cover the period from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2006 — STATS lists having received $100,000 that year in income from grants and other public support.[11] Media Transparency reports that on December 31,2005, STATS received $100,000 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation, making the foundation its sole supporter that year. (STATS only other income that year was a paltry $523 in interest).

      The group’s annual return also indicates that in 2005/2006, the group ran a deficit of over $210,000.[11

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s