Glia
03-24-2014, 03:26 PM
In February, a group of Food and Drug Administration scientists published a study (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1095576-delclos-toxsci-2014inpress.html) [1] finding that low-level exposure to the common plastic additive bisphenol A (BPA) is safe. The media, the chemical industry (https://www.science20.com/steve_hentges/fda_bpa_safety-130675) [2], and FDA officials (https://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/02/26/283030949/government-studies-suggest-bpa-exposure-from-food-isn-t-risky) [3] touted this as evidence that long-standing concerns about the health effects of BPA were unfounded. ("BPA Is A-Okay, Says FDA," read one Forbes headline (https://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2014/03/12/fda-research-confirms-bpa-is-a-ok/) [4].) But, behind the scenes, a dozen leading academic scientists who had been working with the FDA on a related project were fuming over the study's release—partly because they believed the agency had bungled the experiment.
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/scientists-slam-fda-study-bpa
(https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/scientists-slam-fda-study-bpa)
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/scientists-slam-fda-study-bpa
(https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/scientists-slam-fda-study-bpa)