$5,000,000 Donation from BPA Supporter: Conflict of Interest, or Business as Usual?
Bisphenol A (BPA) is found in products in every area of our lives, from baby bottles to canned food linings. From CDs to helmets. Electronics to dental sealants.
It’s not good for you.
Nalgene stopped using it.
California considered banning it, but didn’t.
BPA has been detected in over 90% of Americans tested, and it is possibly linked to breast and prostate cancer. This synthetic hormone may harm the reproductive system of humans. The FDA has studied it and released a draft assessment declaring it safe.
A panel studying the FDA’s draft assessment will soon make a pivotal decision as to whether BPA can continue to be used in contact with food. The chair of the panel is Martin Philbert, who founded and directs the University of Michigan’s Risk Science Center.
The Risk Science Center recently received a $5,000,000 donation (25 times its annual budget) from Charles Gelman, a supporter of BPA, and critic of government regulation. Gelman is a retired industrialist with his own page on SourceWatch. He donates to organizations like the Cato Institute and the Mackinac Center for Policy Research.
- » See also: Gardasil For Boys: FDA Recommends Controversial Vaccine
- » Get Eco Child’s Play by RSS or sign up by email.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on the connection between Charles Gelman and Martin Philbert, offering this beauty of a quote:
“Donor Charles Gelman, once labeled the second worst polluter in Michigan by the state’s Department of Natural Resources, said in an interview that he considered the chemical, which is used to make baby bottles and aluminum can liners, to be safe. Worries about health problems that may be caused by the chemical are exaggerated by “mothers’ groups and others who don’t know the science,” Gelman said.”
The FDA didn’t consider it a conflict of interest for Philbert, so $5 million must be the fee for approving the safety of a chemical in America.
They say they are looking into it… Yeah, right.
Related BPA posts:
- 10 Ways To Avoid Toxic Plastic – BPA, Synthetic Estrogens and Your Child
- BPA: Clearing through the Clutter
- Infants Exposed to BPA in Their Formula
Image: bradley j on Flickr under Creative Commons License
Oh that is just sick. Another reason I don’t trust the government to tell me what to feed my kids.
I can’t believe they still use this stuff on the interior of tin cans and other places where it actively leaches into food.
Another obvious conflict of interests between people’s health and $$$.
[...] BPA is a hot topic. Is it a concern or not? According to the FDA, BPA is okay at the levels found in our food and storage containers which hold our food. I am not one to trust the FDA to decide what is safe for my child. This is the same organization that says artificial colorants are okay in foods, the same colorants that cause my six year olds face to go red and blotchy (among other reactions that the medical community will try to say aren’t related, because food doesn’t affect behavior they say). [...]
Actually, even more recently Canada has added BPA to a list of toxic substances:
“Placing bisphenol A, or BPA as it is known, on the dangerous substance list gives the government the authority to make regulations to cut exposures.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081017.wbisphenol1017/BNStory/National/home
[...] seems the bad news about BPA never ceases! From canned foods to pacifiers, this hormone disrupting chemical has been a cause for concern [...]
[...] FDA has yet to change their policy on the chemical in food contact materials. Instead, there has been [...]