Monday, February 7, 2011

Turn Their Own Precautionary Principle Against Them

Health News Digest contributing columnist Michael D. Shaw takes no prisoners in his latest article. "For far too long, he argues, the fringe Green movement—better referred to as fear entrepreneurs—has been using the chemical Bisphenol-A (BPA) as their favorite fund-raising scapegoat. There are also repeated calls for BPA to be banned."

Bisphenol A (BPA) is an industrial chemical used primarily to make polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins. A major application of epoxy resins is as a protective coating in metal cans to maintain the quality of canned foods and beverages. Specifically, the coating is essential to prevent corrosion of the can and contamination of food and beverages with dissolved metals and bacteria.

Even though no harm has ever been attributed to this compound, and hundreds of millions of people have been exposed to it for decades, it is still a powerful fund-raising tool. Shaw details five reasons for this:

→ Minute (but harmless) amounts of BPA can leach out from polycarbonate baby bottles.

→ Trace amounts of BPA metabolites (orders of magnitude below EPA standards) have been detected in urine.

→ Grant-awarding agencies and scientific journals tend to like sensationalistic results more than actual science.

→ The bewildered public has been sold on the notion that evil industry alone has sordid motives, while the fear entrepreneurs are simon-pure.

→ There is an appalling lack of understanding of risk assessment even among so-called scientists.

Helping their misguided cause has been the so-called Precautionary Principle.

When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.

In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.

The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.

"Fair enough," says Shaw. "BPA has been used for decades with absolutely no ill effect, and any proposed alternative does not have a fraction of the research data behind it. Therefore, according to the Precautionary Principle, those who propose the ban of BPA should bear the burden of proof."

He adds, "It's time to turn tables on the fear entrepreneurs."