Ignoring Science, 97% of Stories Hype BPA as Health Threat
Fear
of chemicals and “toxins” is rampant among the so-called
“environmental” left. Unfortunately, that phobia infects national media
coverage as well. For more than a decade, the left has been on the
attack against BPA, a chemical that is commonly found in plastics and
other products.
Anti-chemical
groups such as the Breast Cancer Fund and some scientists have crusaded
against BPA (known formally as bisphenol A), connecting it to cancer
and reproductive problems and claiming that it is “a threat to human
health,” despite government agencies that have declared it “harmless”
even in baby bottles. Much of the national media have bought in
spreading fear of the chemical in ordinary canned goods, on cash
register receipts, in dental sealants and more.
In
just the past two years, the three broadcast networks and top five
national newspapers have continued to report on the “hidden danger” of
BPA, labeling it “carcinogenic” and “toxic” often with small or flawed
reports from activists. Ninety-seven percent of two years’ worth of
newspaper and TV news stories that discussed BPA were about the supposed
danger or potential threat of the chemical. This despite an Institute
of Medicine study (funded by Komen) and government agencies’ findings
about the chemical. Just two of the 87 stories focused on research that
found BPA wasn’t the risk the left claims it is.
A
popular charity, Susan G. Komen for the Cure (which recently angered
the left when it rescinded grants to Planned Parenthood), paid the
Institute of Medicine to do a study of environmental risks of breast
cancer. When the findings did not call BPA a risk factor breast cancer,
some on the left were furious. Amy Silverstein cited many critics who
say Komen is “in the pocket” of “BPA-happy sponsors” in an Oct. 3, 2011 article for Mother Jones. The Breast Cancer Fund said the study “relies on an antiquated model of weighing the evidence.”
Meanwhile,
the media have exaggerated the threat of BPA for years. On the Feb. 25,
2010, CBS “Early Show” broadcast, Katie Lee crossed the line from hype
into outright falsehood when she said of BPA: “And that’s been shown to
cause liver disease, heart failure, all sorts of things.” If that were
true, certainly regulatory agencies like the FDA, WHO and others would
have already banned it (they haven’t). Reputable studies done by
government agencies have failed to find proof that BPA is dangerous to
people. One of those studies: Teeguarden et al.,
found that even when people consume very high levels of BPA the amount
of BPA found in the bloodstream is much lower than levels “causing
effects in rodents exposed to BPA.”
Yet,
news reports regularly warn people to avoid BPA by “using a glass water
bottle or metal,” advising them to “go fresh” or “go frozen” and use
glass containers for storage instead of Tupperware. Generally the
additional time and monetary expense, or inconvenience of those changes
is ignored.
The
Business & Media Institute analyzed ABC, CBS and NBC news reports
as well as The New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles
Times and Wall Street Journal that discussed BPA from Jan. 1, 2010,
through Dec. 31, 2011. BMI excluded casual mentions of products that
happened to have a BPA-free label, because the stories were not actually
about the chemical.
Komen Study Finds no Reason to Avoid BPA, Gets Spun into Attack
In
December 2011, a reputable study looking for risks of breast cancer
found little reason to avoid BPA. That should have made headlines, but
some media outlets still managed to turn the story around and criticize
the plastics chemical.
The
Los Angeles Times offered one of the two exceptions to scary anti-BPA
coverage on Dec. 8, 2011, when the paper reported the findings of a
“comprehensive” study conducted by the Institute of Medicine and funded
by Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Komen was criticized for its findings by
many on the left including anti-chemical group Breast Cancer Fund and
the left-wing magazine Mother Jones.
The
Times wrote, “As for other chemicals in wide circulation that are the
subject of intense scrutiny and activism -- including parabens in
cosmetics, growth hormones in livestock, phthalates in plastics and
bisphenol A in food and drug packaging -- evidence of danger is too scant to recommend avoidance, the panel said.” (emphasis added)
According
to the Institute of Medicine’s press release, evidence that BPA (and a
couple other chemicals) was a breast cancer risk factor was either
“insufficient or contradictory.”
But
other media outlets spun that good news for BPA and nervous consumers
into an attack on it and other chemicals. One network doctor even
disputed the findings.
The
Dec. 8, 2011, New York Times warned “the report may come as a
disappointment” for those “hoping for definitive safety information
about the huge number of chemicals to which people are exposed”
Additionally the Times claimed the “limited advice” was due to a “lack
of solid scientific information in many areas of concern.”
NBC’s
Dr. Nancy Snyderman actually argued with the findings on “Today”
saying, “But bisphenol A. There’s going to be push-back on BPA and
pesticides because a lot of people are going to say, ‘Wait a minute, you
can’t tell me there’s not a cause because it just hasn’t been studied.”
Actually
BPA has been studied extensively, but studies that have found no harm
from BPA have often been ignored or distorted by the media. One of these
studies was a “huge” and “scientifically rigorous” study called Ryan et al.
in 2009. Richard Sharpe, a leading endocrinologist, of the Queen’s
Medical Research Institute (UK) wrote in The Toxicological Sciences
journal that the Ryan et al. study “throws cold water”
on the BPA controversy “by showing complete absence of effect of a
range of bisphenol A exposures ...” According to Sharpe, this study
found no estrogenic effects of ingested BPA even when the doses were
4,000 times more than maximum human exposures.
Many
network and newspaper stories have cited BPA’s estrogenic effects
claiming they could be linked to early puberty, behavior problems in
young children and reproductive problems in adult men. Because BPA is
ingested by humans and metabolized and excreted quickly, that could only
happen if active BPA was somehow migrating to the bloodstream.
The 2011 Teeguarden et al. study found little evidence of that. Justin Teeguarden was quoted in Forbes column by Trevor Butterworth saying,
“In a nutshell, we can now say for the adult human population exposed
to even very high dietary levels, blood concentrations of the bioactive
form of BPA through the day are below our ability to detect them, and
orders of magnitude lower than those causing effects in rodents exposed
to BPA.”
The study was funded by the EPA, and according to Butterworth “the
analytical work was duplicated by two other government laboratories to
ensure extra rigor.”
Butterworth
has done extensive investigation of studies on both sides of the BPA
controversy for Statistical Assessment Services (STATS),
a non-partisan non-profit that seeks to correct scientific
misinformation in the news media. STATS has been affiliated with George
Mason University since 2004.
Rather than Reporting Those Studies, Media Rely on Activist Claims
Left-wing
groups that want BPA regulated (either by consumer fear or the
government) grab headlines or airtime almost every time they release
another report or “study” about the dangers of BPA. Rather than
responding with skepticism or at least pointing out the agendas of those
groups, many in the news media simply echo them.
In
September 2010, “a new study” claimed that dental sealants could break
down into BPA when coming in contact with saliva. USA Today warned that
BPA was a “toxic chemical” “linked to a variety of health problems,” and
quoted Philip Landrigan of Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, who
co-authored the study.
Further
down in the story the newspaper admitted that after three hours, the
detected BPA drops off quickly. So why did they even report this in the
first place? How is it big, scary news if the BPA is gone within hours?
What USA Today ignored is that Landrigan is an activist scientist who
wants the U.S. to adopt the same “precautionary principle” used by some
countries, and the opposite of the way the U.S. has regulated in the
past (it is also contrary to the legal principle of innocent until
proven guilty). If adopted, chemicals would have to be proved safe
before being used, rather than proved harmful. He has also claimed
chemicals in cosmetics and shampoo may be contributing to obesity (The UK Daily Mail quoted him saying: “The heaviest girls have the highest levels of phthalates in their urine.”)
Even
in the rare event of reporters mentioning experts who said “so far
there is no proof of a connection” between breast cancer and BPA, the
media found a way to attack it. In one story, NBC went to a source who
argued the opposite of such experts. Robert Bazell turned to a breast
cancer survivor, Marika Holmgren on July 7, 2010. Holmgren said she was
convinced her cancer was because of chemicals.
As
Bazell put it, “Although every expert will say one case does not prove a
connection, Marika Holmgren believes chemicals could have played a role
in her cancer.” Holmgren then told viewers, “A lot of the stuff that
we’re putting on our bodies, um, on our faces, is -- contains chemicals
that increase our risk of breast cancer.”
NBC
portrayed Holmgren as an ordinary woman, who had battled cancer and
blames chemicals. But that wasn’t the whole story. In fact, Holmgren is a
left-wing environmentalist with a lengthy bio. She currently works as a
green event planner and writes for the liberal online enclave:
Huffington Post.
She
has advised or worked for several liberal groups including Friends of
the Earth and ForestEthics and Rainforest Action Network. According to
her Huffington Post bio, she also participates in a mountain bike team
that raises money for the anti-chemical group Breast Cancer Fund, the
same pro-regulation anti-chemical group that has been advocating against
BPA for years.
NBC
wasn’t alone. Broadcast and print stories critical of BPA consulted
many left-wing environmental or anti-chemical groups, including
employees of Breast Cancer Fund, Silent Spring Institute (named after
anti-chemical activist Rachel Carson), Environmental Working Group,
Ralph Nader’s U.S. PIRG and National Work Group for Safe Markets.
These
groups are to blame for creating a “link” between BPA and diseases,
according to Jeff Stier of American Council on Science and Health. He
has explained: “Of
course BPA is ‘linked’ to obesity and cancer, because these people
linked it. There’s no causal relationship, but you can say there is a
link between anything you want, just based on animal studies.”
History of Hype
The media have been frightening readers and viewers about BPA for more than 10 years.
In 1998 PBS’s “Frontline”
interviewed University of Missouri professor, Frederick vom Saal, who
claimed that chemicals could cause more harm in low doses than in large
ones. Vom Saal argued that BPA was a “very potent estrogen” and claimed
it was acting as an estrogen in people’s bodies. But other scientists’
attempts to replicate vom Saal’s findings were a failure.
More
than a decade later, in 2010 and 2011, the media were still at it. Just
before Thanksgiving 2011, NBC and ABC frightened consumers about the
potential dangers of canned food at their holiday meal. But the “new
research” they were citing was simply that BPA in urine samples went up
more than 10 fold in 75 volunteers who had eaten canned soup for five
days straight.
Since
cans often have BPA liners in order to prevent food contamination and
poisoning, eating more canned goods would logically result in more
ingested BPA. The only thing higher BPA in urine samples proved was that
BPA was ingested and excreted. No harm was proven, yet the networks
spoke of links between BPA and “deadly disease.”
In
2010, other media outlets worried readers and viewers too. Reuters
warned of a “potential carcinogen in my soup,” despite the fact that BPA
is not a known human carcinogen. CNN’s Elizabeth Cohen took a left-wing
pro-regulatory group’s study so seriously in May 2010 that she
impractically advocated that people should “start your own garden,” and
then said the people who wrote the study “think that a lot of BPA can
make you infertile.”
Robert
L. Brent, MD, PhD, D.Sc., and adviser to the American Council on
Science and Health (ACSH) condemned that 2010 study from the National
Workgroup on Safe Markets as hype intended to “frighten unsophisticated
scientists and the public.”
“The
overwhelming scientific evidence points to the conclusion that as
current human exposure levels, BPA is not toxic -- and specifically is
not linked to the myriad diseases outlined in the National Workgroup for
Safe Markets report released earlier this week,” Brent concluded.
Back
in 2009, MSNBC’s Dr. Nancy Snyderman bashed BPA saying, “It’s a
synthetic estrogen that some scientists believe can be linked to
everything from breast cancer to obesity. We associate it with plastic
water bottles, but now Consumer Reports says that BPA is even in canned
foods.”
Snyderman’s guest, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof hyped the so-called danger of BPA by comparing it to “tobacco in the 1970s.”
In
2008, NBC’s “Today” warned about reproductive dangers of ingesting BPA
from reusable plastic water bottles, after they had campaigned against
ordinary plastic bottles claiming they were bad for the environment.
The
media have been making the anti-BPA case for a very long time and show
no signs of stopping, despite no proof that it causes diseases in humans
and in spite of studies like the Institute of Medicine’s report, Teeguarden et al. and Ryan et al.
