2
Unsafe at any sip: Washington babies lose
And for today's jeopardy: Who is the U.S Trade Representative to China and why did he meddle with Maryland's proposed healthy toy bill? What percentage of Wal-Mart products are made in China? (hint: 70%) Why do we still believe that a little bit of toxins are ok for babies? Who would jettison baby health for a $700,000/hour market for a chemical? What does it mean to be "free" of something ? (in this case to be BPA free)?
In Washington State, we just botched a prime opportunity to ban Bisphenol A (BPA) in baby bottles. BPA, an endocrine disruptor-- the regulator for your entire body-- is bad juju for pregnant women, babies in utero and infants... at teensy weensy levels measured in parts per billion. The bad juju is heart disease, diabetes, cancer and metabolic disorders. Both Wal-Mart and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) arrived in our mossy spring to just add a few "touch ups" to Washington's now buried Safe Baby Bottle Bill.
Enter (tada....) doubt and uncertainty, the playing card which routinely kills good public health policy, and the black labyrinth called risk assessment where industry and independent scientists duke it out in a dizzying mosh pit.
Last year, Wal-Mart received kudos worldwide for announcing its intention to pull baby products containing BPA from its shelves. Even the investors noticed. But this year, the lawyers noticed as well, bringing a class action lawsuit (opens PDF) against the top four polycarbonate plastic bottle manufacturers for using BPA. Ouch.
The puzzle is why did Wal-Mart submit an amendment to the Washington State legislature to permit what's called a "de minimus" (teensy weensy) amount of BPA in baby bottles that is thousands of times higher than levels where we see adverse health effects? Does it have anything to do with the fact that 70% of their products are manufactured in China where chemical policy might not be in the forefront of manufacturing priorities? Safer alternatives are available and they are being used in the market but Wal-Mart and the ACC will step in to set "safe" limits where the feds left a continent-sized hole.
This story traces back to the massive federal regulatory failure when the National Toxicology Program (Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction) hired a company that had a Hummer-sized conflict of interest to run the risk assessment for BPA. They based their entire risk assessment on two industry-sponsored studies that found BPA ok at particular levels but decided to ignore 98 other independent studies that found to the contrary. Oops. Oh well, they got fired anyhow under intense pressure from smart scientists and people with good values.
Federal Government: F
Wal- Mart:??
Parents: Going Nuts
So, what is a parent to do? There's a plethora of great resources out there including
choosing safer baby products, the Smart Plastics Guide for food products (opens PDF), and a broader coalition of parents sick of trashing kids for commercial values. Go find your de minimus... of sickening trade-offs.
Wow, this is an incredible post that really needed to be written. Thanks Heidi for cutting through the veil of "doubt and uncertainty" that the chemical industry and its partners - like Wal-Mart - drape around every effort to eliminate toxic chemicals from products as diverse as mattresses, baby bottles, shampoos and soda cans.
State legislation to restrict the use of chemicals is facing a major backlash in many states, as dozens of chemical industry lobbyists walk the halls of state capitols threatening the ruin of society as we know it if baby bottles are toxic free. It's patently absurd, but enough legislators in Washington State chose the way of Wal-Mart and the chemical industry to sink the bill.
There is good news, though. A ban on BPA -- passed with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote -- now sits on the desk of Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (R). He has until Friday to sign it into law, which will make Minnesota the first state in the nation to ban BPA. Connecticut may not be far behind.
And there's a federal bill to ban BPA that goes well beyond baby bottles and sippy cups to protect older children and adults from the harm of this ubiquitous chemical.
The time has come for more truth-telling about who is responsible for embedding toxic chemicals linked to disease and developmental disorders in our food, homes, and everyday products.
To stay on top of what's happening in the states and Congress on toxic chemicals, visit http://www.saferstates.org.
Heidi:
While I commend you on your article I am compelled to point out that you have your facts wrong with respect to the manner in which the retail stores decided to withdraw their BPA made products from their shelves. First of all, our law firm: The Law Offices of Robert H. Weiss, PLLC of Jericho, New York filed the first Consumer Class Action case on behalf of the infants and children in California in March 2007. We sued all of the major baby bottle manufacturers using polycarbonate plastic in their baby bottles and training cups, as well as several retail stores in Califorina that sold these products.
We were out there all alone taking on the biggest defense firms in the country until approximately April 2008 when Canada announced it intended to add BPA to it's national list of toxins and toxic substances. Thereafter in late April, May and June 2009, dozens of plaintiffs firms jumped on the bandwagon and filed nearly identical claims against the same manufacturers with many of them adopting our complaint and the fruits of hours and hours of work by our firm's attorneys as the template for their own complaints. That's fine since we have no problem sharing our workproduct with other plaintiffs' firms who joined us in a cause no one else seemed to be interested in unitl well more than year following our initiative.
The only thing is we'd like people who write about BPA in a legal context to do - is to get their facts straight. It was only After WE had been involved in litigating our case in California -turning up the heat on these defendants, did some of the retail stores including those you cite in your aricle - come to the conclusion that the writing was on the wall - that once consumers were aware of the dangers of BPA - they would not want to buy products that posed a danger to their infants and children.
You should also be aware that Robert H. Weiss, Esq., of our firm, was interviewed dozens of times on national radio programs, and on television discussing how the infants and children in this country were being poisoned, in addition to both he and I having been interviewed by several print journalists for features on BPA - months and months before the actions were taken by the retail stores - and not the other way around.
It is not a situation where the lawyers jumped into the fray because of what the retailers did. Quite the other way around -the retailers took action, at least in part, because of our efforts and in holding their feet to the fire and for Robert Weiss' tireless efforts to spread the word to all consumers of these products, and especially to those parents currently using these products.
Come to think of it - I don't believe I ever saw your name or your organization surface during these days when nobody paid attention to this issue except for a consumer protection firm like ours that took the chance and paid for all of the costs associated with bringing this litigation forward. I mean no disrespect by responding in this fashion but I would like to correct the record for you and your readers. thank you.
Stephen David Murakami, Esq.
The Law Offices of Robert H. Weiss, PLLC
Jericho, New York
stephen@robertweisslaw.com
rightsforamerica.com
