If FDA admits the chemical is scary enough to avoid and previous independent scientific advisory panels have derided the agency for ignoring the mounting evidence, why did the agency back down yet again?
Scientists, consumers, retailers, manufacturers and the states are sending clear signals that BPA doesn't belong in our food packaging and that investment in safe alternatives is an investment in the health of the American public. Now the FDA needs to catch up.
In California we recently won a victory when BPA was banned from baby bottles and sippy cups. Even before the ban, some producers were eliminating BPA from their products. My daughter's pink sippy cup, for example, was labeled "BPA-free." So why would I still worry?
Harmless alternatives to BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups are in demand. With the signing of this bill, California can signal that big chemical company money cannot trump the health of babies and toddlers.
As many companies have already shown, alternatives do exists and you don't need BPA to make a baby bottle. The chemical lobbyists won a round when I was prevented from offering my BPA legislation, but this fight is just beginning.
We should not use our kids as guinea pigs by taking chances on a chemical that can seriously harm their immediate and long-term health. No chemical should be used in food products until it is proven to be safe.