In a matter a few years at most, babies living in the USA will likely be off the BPA-laced formula. Washington Post documents two important developmen...
Read Whole Story
As politicos bandy about the issue of banning bisphenol A (BPA), the hard-plastic additive that's been linked to a host of health problems, several co...
It was the first City Council committee meeting in memory that included presentations about heat-labile molecular bonds and synthetic estrogen.
New research suggests that BPA may interfere with metabolism and lead to obesity, heart disease and diabetes in humans.
Going through the insult of chemotherapy is bad enough. But discovering that it could be undermined by a hazard the FDA refuses to regulate makes it worse.
Two highly reactive chemicals in a common plastic can leak from disposable lab equipment and skew the outcome of life science research.
Just last April, Canada banned the use of BPA in baby bottles. So why is our government still allowing BPA to be used?
I am a breast cancer survivor, and in the years immediately after my diagnosis, I sometimes found the annual proliferation of pink ribbons difficult--it was hard to be reminded of cancer.
Besides a complete overhaul, a few prosecutions might be just the medicine the FDA needs.
Studies suggest that what we eat, how we live, and what our environment exposes us to today could have an impact on the health of our distant descendants.
A couple of new studies warrant serious consideration by the federal government. They support a growing body of research that shows risks to human health from bisphenol A (BPA).
We get that more research needs to be done to truly understand the effects of this chemical on our bodies, but that doesn't mean the public should remain the guinea pigs.
The first major epidemiological study to assess the risks of bisphenol A -- a chemical found in baby bottles, canned foods, and in 90 percent of Ameri...
There was a time when the FDA was considered the gold standard throughout the world in maintaining drug and food safety. Today, however, the agency's image is tarnished almost beyond repair.
Most execs certainly see the need to do more than what the government is asking. And many forces are coming to bear on companies, making green a profitable (not optional) path.
The Bush administration has lost any shame, in its lame-duck days, about relying on industry to demonstrate the safety of potential environmental toxins.
If the FDA was going to rely almost entirely on industry-sponsored studies to come to its conclusions about plastics, why didn't it try to hide that?
Get top stories and blogs posts emailed to you each day.