Nov 15 2009

Bisphenol A: And now, erectile disfunction!

The newspapers and the Internet are full of reports that men exposed to bisphenol A (BPA) have higher levels of erectile disfunction.  Before going into a panic, take a look at the study details.   This one was a survey of factory workers in China exposed to exceptionally high levels of this endocrine-disrupting chemical.

What does the study mean for men exposed to much lower levels?  We don’t have a clue.  But we’ve heard plenty of unsettling things about BPA (see previous posts), including accounts by Jill Richardson and others of the extraordinary efforts of industry lobbyists to prevent officials from banning BPA. This new research suggests that a ban is a pretty good idea, even if most people are not harmed by small amounts.

Reasons?

  • BPA is not essential in the human diet.
  • It is an unnecessary contaminant.
  • Small amounts of harmful chemicals can accumulate in the body.
  • We have no idea what the threshold for harm might be.
  • Removing it from the food and water supply is not all that difficult.

In sum, everyone except makers of BPA plastics can do just fine without it.  I’m stuck; I can’t think of a single reason not to ban it.

Update, November 20: According to reports, NY Senator Charles Schumer has introduced a bill to ban BPA.  The headline of this account says “tabled.”  I think it means “introduced”?

9 comments
Share |
Tags:

Comments

  • manuel
  • November 15, 2009
  • 12:57 pm

u r absolutely rite,there is no single healthy reason not 2 ban BPA. let me go out on a limb-they dont want 2 ban it due 2 the possibility of negative economic impact on their bottom line. 2 hell with the people,what about their salaries,bonuses & the share holders who could impact their comfy position. as usual the public gets screwed & they smile as they r gettin screwed as a result of their ignorance.

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by nyusteinhardt: Bisphenol A: And now, erectile disfunction! http://ff.im/-bv33s...

You answered your own question within the post about why not ban it–”the extraordinary efforts of industry lobbyists to prevent officials from banning BPA.” Money talks….

  • Cathy Richards
  • November 16, 2009
  • 1:10 pm

This is great! Well, not really. But finally something that might get the politicians’ attention. Rather than hermaphrodite frogs or girlish behaviour in boy babies.

  • L.C.
  • November 16, 2009
  • 6:38 pm

There seem to be many plastics companies that are making BPA-free products. At least I see them all over the place.

“BPA” should stand for “better products available” than BPA. Or perhaps Bogus Plastic Additive.

  • dogear6
  • November 17, 2009
  • 5:23 pm

I was getting a bit discouraged over all of my time and effort to preserve my own food (some homegrown; other bought at the Farmer’s Market). Reading this sure did remind me why I should be more proactive in my own food supply. Thanks.

  • Jill
  • November 19, 2009
  • 3:00 am

Bills are as follows:
H.R. 1523 & S.593 – Ban Poisonous Additives Act of 2009
58 cosponsors in the House, 5 in the Senate, currently in the House Energy & Commerce Committee, and the HELP committee in the Senate.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1523
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-593

S. 753 – BPA-free Kids Act of 2009
4 cosponsors, currently in the Senate Commerce, Science, & Transportation committee
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-753

[...] Marion Nestle noted on her Food Politics blog, “I can’t think of a single reason not to ban it.” Nestle, who called recently for the feds [...]

  • telaros
  • December 14, 2010
  • 1:26 pm

“Reading this sure did remind me why I should be more proactive in my own food supply. Thanks.”
Something I doubt …

Leave a comment