This Week in the Mercury

So You Think You Can Arabesque?

Film

So You Think You Can Arabesque?

First Position: Dancing Kids with Bloody Feet!


The (Un)Happy Hooker

Theater

The (Un)Happy Hooker

Red Light Winter: A Prostitute Is Rarely the Solution to Your Problems



  |  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Politics / Green The Oregon Senate Doesn't Care About Babies.

Posted by Sarah Mirk on Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 4:40 PM

That bottle is eating her brain RIGHT NOW!
  • That bottle is eating her brain RIGHT NOW!
That's the only conclusion I can come to after today's vote shot down a proposed ban on Bisphenol A (BPA) products in baby's bottles and sippy cups.

The Oregon Environmental Council, which scored a win at the state legislature last week with the passage of an offshore oil drilling ban, made banning BPA from baby products a top priority for this session. Here's why, courtesy of Scientific American:


Studies have linked exposure to the chemical—which can rapidly leach out of plastic bottles when they are exposed to a hot liquid—to damage in developing brains and tissues as well as a heightened risk of cancer later in life.

Even the FDA raised concern about BPA use in products babies eat or drink from.

So why did 15 senators vote down the bill to ban brain-eating BPA from baby products? Here's the quote in the Oregonian from one opponent:

"Nobody wants to vote against nursing moms and mothers," said Sen. Jason Atkinson, R-Central Point, who said he believes BPA is "bad" and his family opted not to use bottles containing it. But BPA opponents "want to go into Oregon's food processing industries," Atkinson said.

BPA is used in the lining of aluminum food cans. Oregon agricultural processing is responsible for 29,240 jobs in Oregon every year, according to state figures. Opposing senators are afraid that if we make food safe for babies, pretty soon we'll be wanting to make it safe for all people. And that means change. Nooo!

Anyway, here's a convenient list of baby-hating Senators and a convenient list of ways to reduce babies' BPA exposure.

 

Comments (4) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
One argument is that I've heard is that - well, just think for a second. They don't add BPA to plastic just for kicks, right? It's an important part of the recipe - I believe it's a thickener. If they take it out without replacing it with another thickener, they can't make plastic.

The argument goes that we've been using BPA for 30 years, and after 30 years of testing have recently found areas of 'marginal' or 'negligible' concern. Sure, that's a problem, but unfortunately we don't have any alternatives that have undergone 30 years of testing! There's recently been a big switch to non-BPA plastic to placate ignorant customers, but the only chemistry student I know is very worried about them because the BPA alternatives that have been rushed into production just have NOT been tested as well.

The alternatives may turn out to be terribly unhealthy. They aren't selling because they've been proven safe, they're only selling because people haven't heard of them.
Posted by Reymont on February 17, 2010 at 9:04 AM · Report
2
Hey, Reymont. Ok, so the thing is, there are more than 7 different kinds of plastic resins out there. Polycarbonate -- the one that is made out of BPA -- is only one kind. It was the preferred material because it is durable, shatterproof and clear. It has been around for 30 years -- but resins like polypropylene and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) have also been around for decades. The big difference is A) Polycarbonate is the only one made with an endocrine disrupting chemicals and B) PP and PET plastics are not quite as clear and not quite as durable as PC.

The "big switch" in baby bottle manufacturing includes alternatives that we don't know much about (like new kinds of nylon and polyester) -- but it is also a very simple switch to materials we've been using all along (glass, PET, PP) -- but just haven't been the "preferred" material.

So I think you're right - -we need to reform chemical policy so that we aren't creating more of a problem. But in the meantime, we shouldn't put up with old materials when we *know* that they have the potential to interfere with very delicate systems in our bodies, like the endocrine system.
Posted by P0rtlander on February 17, 2010 at 1:49 PM · Report
3
Thanks, Portlander - I knew I didn't have very much real info. Good stuff.
Posted by Reymont on February 17, 2010 at 1:52 PM · Report
4
Here's a BPA timeline/history if it helps: http://www.ewg.org/reports/bpatimeline. Ultimately we need to reform TSCA at the federal level for a longer-term comprehensive solution: http://www.ewg.org/kid-safe-chemicals-act-…. Testing is after-the-fact as it stands. We are essentially human guinea pigs. Happy days!
Posted by Lisa Frack on February 17, 2010 at 8:01 PM · Report

Add a comment

Our Friends

Our Enemies

/images/adoftheweek.gif

ad of the day

The Handyman Pro - Your Honey-Do Specialist
Don’t let our name fool you. The Handyman Pro, LLC is a repair and remodel service provider with over 25-years experience. We cover all aspects of construction and repairs for residential and commercial clients.go


post an ad

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC

115 SW Ash St. Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204

Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Production Guidelines | Terms of Use