Ban BPA in California!
ENTER TO WIN! Learn to cook healthier meals for your family! Click here to enter to win Real Food for Rookies, a new online class -- retail value $120, plus over $60 worth of discount coupons. Don't miss out! contest ends this SATURDAY Sept 4th at midnight Pacific.
You guys are going to love this. The other day I got the mail and found a piece of direct mail that read,
“Don’t Let Sacramento Politicians Remove Products From Your Grocery Bag”
I opened it up and read the following:
Banning Materials That Keep Our Food Fresh and Safe is a Terrible Idea
Soon, many common, everyday products could disappear from grocery store shelves all across California.
WHY?
In Sacramento, politicians are considering a ban of BPA — a material that’s been safely used for 50 years in food packaging and a wide variety of plastic products like reusable water and baby bottles.
Huh? BPA? Baby bottles? SAFE? What the…?
All you have to do is one google search on BPA or “Bispehenol A” and you’ll find search result after search result talking about how dangerous BPA is and how it’s being banned in countries around the world.
What is Bisphenol A?
Bisphenol A (BPA) is a synthetic chemical compound used in a wide range of consumer products and is classed by the Government of Canada as a hormone disruptor. Source: Environmental Defence, Canada
I looked at the mailer again. It was a 4-page full-color brochure — not cheap to produce and mail a piece of direct mail like this, by the way. I was suspicious. Who paid for this?
I looked at the bottom of the last page and saw, “Paid for by BPAfacts.org“.
Ah ha! Once again, GIYF (Google Is Your Friend).
I pulled up the BPAfacts.org website and scrolled down to the bottom of the page. There I read:
A Project of the American Chemistry Council
Sounded like a front group to me.
According to SourceWatch (one of my favorite websites):
A front group is an organization that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned. The front group is perhaps the most easily recognized use of the third party technique. For example, the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) claims that its mission is to defend the rights of consumers to choose to eat, drink and smoke as they please. In reality, CCF is a front group for the tobacco, restaurant and alcoholic beverage industries, which provide all or most of its funding.
So I typed in the words “American Chemistry Council” into the SourceWatch search box, and lo and behold, look what I found:
The American Chemistry Council is a top trade association representing North American chemical manufacturers. ACC represents represents nearly 150 companies and has a $100 million budget. The group spent more than $2 million on lobbying in 2003. Source
A few years ago, they paid the ad agency, Ogilvy, $35 million to do a chemicals- and plastics-promoting campaign, centered around this website: AmericanChemistry.com.
This one, too: Facts on Plastic.
Article after article telling you how safe BPA is. Of course, this was all paid for by multinational corporations producing chemicals and plastics.
They’re even paying for Google ads. When you type in “BPA” or “Bisphenol-A”, two of the the sponsored search results are websites paid for by the American Chemistry Council.
Ah, those folks at Ogilvy are smart, aren’t they?
I guess this expensive piece of direct mail is a drop in the bucket to them, considering how much they spent on these websites.
At the bottom of this brochure, it says: “To prevent this needless ban, call your state legislator today and tell them to vote No on SB1713. Call Assembly Speaker Karen Bass at (916) 319-2047 and tell her to vote No on SB1713.”
So now we know what to do. You guys have been great in the past about calling Assembly members to support raw milk. Now it’s time to ban BPA in California.
Call Assembly Speaker Karen Bass at (916) 319-2047 and tell her to VOTE YES on SB1713 and BAN BPA in California!
I’m going to call today.
Please, email friends and family in California and ask them to call. And post this on your blogs to let others know to tell their friends and family in California.
California could become the first state in the nation to ban BPA in cans, formula containers, baby bottles and toys — and if that happens, it will set a precedent for the rest of the country.
Spread the word!
Thanks, American Chemistry Council! (Wink, wink)
Photo credit: Safe Baby
NEVER MISS A POST! Sign Up for FREE Email Updates:
You can also Subscribe in a Reader
04/08/2008 at 9:42 am Permalink
Oh no, a needless ban! Run to the phone! How dare those Assembly Members gather to waste their time debating a needless ban! Gee, they sure must have a lot of time on their hands…
04/08/2008 at 9:44 am Permalink
I think SB1713 was discussed when we were at the Senate last month. You were distracting the toddler and I was trying to get Kate to sleep, but I’m pretty sure I remember them discussing it.
04/08/2008 at 9:50 am Permalink
My senator, Carole Midgen (remember we saw her argue against BPA in the hearing on raw milk?) is the author of this bill. But I just called Mark Leno, the SF Assemblyman and put in my vote for YES, support the ban.
04/08/2008 at 9:51 am Permalink
Yes, now I remember!
I also remember them arguing about the downed cows and the tainted meat in the school lunches, and about toxic lipstick — was it lead in lipstick? I can’t remember.
I want to go back — that was so fun!
04/08/2008 at 12:08 pm Permalink
Great job on researching the producers of that piece of direct mail! And good for you and your readers for getting involved and making your voice heard. Since you’re in California, you can also make your voice heard on Election Day by voting in favor of Proposition 2, which would give farmed animals a tiny bit of humane treatment — by allowing them to turn around and stretch their limbs. You can learn more here: http://www.humanecalifornia.org/
04/08/2008 at 12:34 pm Permalink
Yes, it was lead in lipstick!
So, when are we going back? Heehee.
04/08/2008 at 2:08 pm Permalink
I just received that flyer in the mail today. I immediately tossed it in the recycling bin and thought “You sure sent this to the wrong person!”.
04/08/2008 at 2:37 pm Permalink
LOL!
Yeah, Julie, isn’t it funny how it worked against them though? I’m glad they wasted their money sending it to me because I didn’t know about it.
I posted about this on the Live Journal Natural Living community and people are calling! We can make a difference.
04/08/2008 at 2:37 pm Permalink
Oops meant to post this:
http://community.livejournal.com/naturalliving/4634461.html
04/08/2008 at 4:50 pm Permalink
I had to laugh – I got this mailer too and thought, wow you sent this to the WRONG person. I’m now making a point to tell my assembly person to vote yes on this.
04/08/2008 at 5:37 pm Permalink
I just got this today, too – they must think we’re morons. There won’t be any ‘products’ removed from our grocery bag – the manufacturers will just have to switch to a non-toxic plastic, of which there are many choices.
How evil must you be to work for a company like the American Chemistry Council? Even if the toxicology is less than projected – better safe than sorry, no?
04/08/2008 at 7:33 pm Permalink
Keith -
Haha – yes exactly! That is exactly what I thought.
They must think we are morons. Well said.
So funny that they are trying to scare us into thinking that products will be removed from our grocery bags. Oh no! God forbid!
The truth is, food companies will just have to shell out a lot of money to switch to non-toxic materials. And the chemical and plastic companies (who are behind that piece of direct mail propaganda) will lose.
And yes, I think the people who work for front groups like the American Chemistry Council are either (a) evil, (b) totally ignorant, (c) completely in denial, or (d) all of the above.
Satan’s minions, I say.
Did you see that movie, “Thank You For Smoking”? That’s the kind of person who works for a front group.
05/08/2008 at 6:41 am Permalink
The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Authority and the World Health Organization (WHO) say BPA is safe.
In addition to the WHO and the EFSA, several other prominent international bodies have also agreed with FDA regarding the safety of BPA. These include the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate of the European Commission; the European Chemical Bureau of the European Union; the European Scientific Panel on Food Additives, Flavorings, Processing Aids, and Materials in Contact with Food; and the Japanese National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology.
05/08/2008 at 9:56 am Permalink
Hi, Laney,
Yes someone directed me to the study by the EFSA.
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL2380790220080723?sp=true
Do you know who funded that study? There are many studies that contradict those findings.
As for the FDA, my readers don’t listen to anything the FDA says — since they are totally bought and sold by multinational corporations.
I am just curious — what is your personal interest in BPA and its safety? Just wondering since I haven’t seen you on my blog before and you used a fake email address (unless your email address really is “bpaissafe”. I noticed that your IP address is coming from Washington D.C.
Here’s a really great article on PubMed written by a mother/scientist:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1914410
It’s really worth reading.
Here’s an excerpt:
“Naturally, the prevalence of human exposure leads to questions about safety and health. Although the plastic industry continues to assert that BPA is safe, the chemical’s endocrine-disrupting properties raise concern about its potential to cause harm. BPA exposure affects the hormonal system, in particular, the pathway involving estrogen; its effects have been studied on cells, tissues, and whole organisms. In adult male mice and rats, effects of BPA exposure—abnormal sperm and reduced fertility—were reversed when exposure stopped [8]. Of the few human epidemiological studies, one revealed a relationship between BPA exposure and repeated miscarriage [9]. Additionally, BPA causes a human breast cancer cell line to proliferate, indicating that estrogen-sensitive tissues and cells in the body may react similarly [10].”
Ann Marie
05/08/2008 at 10:02 am Permalink
Yeah, and at one time people thought cigarettes were good for you! I for one don’t want to live in a society where organizations and governments tell me what to believe and how to live because they know better than I do.
05/08/2008 at 10:09 am Permalink
The entire Wikipedia entry on BPA is about its toxicity starting with “Suspected of being hazardous to humans since the 1930s…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A
And look, governments, retailers and manufacturers are already VOLUNTARILY removing it from our grocery bags!
On April 18, 2008 Canadian Health Minister Tony Clement announced that Canada intends to ban the import, sale, and advertising of polycarbonate baby bottles containing bisphenol A over concerns of the safety of bisphenol A. While Health Canada concluded that human exposures are less than the levels deemed to be potentially unsafe, the margin of safety was considered too low for formula-fed infants.[18][57] Around the same time, Wal-Mart announced that it was immediately ceasing sales in all its Canadian stores of food containers, water and baby bottles, sippy cups, and pacifiers containing bisphenol A, and that it would phase out baby bottles made with it in U.S. stores by early 2009.[58] Nalgene also announced it will stop using the chemical in its products,[59] and Toys-R-Us said it too will cease selling baby bottles made from it.[60] Subsequent news reports showed many retailers removing polycarbonate drinking products from their shelves.[61]
So we should insist that they stop removing our right to buy toxic chemicals for our children because the WHO says it’s okay?
05/08/2008 at 11:49 am Permalink
Laney – Denmark and several other member states of EU want to vote against bpa being safe and ban it !
– I don´t give a sxxx for what they say- the industri simply has too much power
Glass have been used for 1000 of years and is safe way to feed your child.
05/08/2008 at 1:53 pm Permalink
Hi Ms. Cheese Slave,
I love cheese. I will never stop. I am a slave, as well.
Thank you for blogging about this. I received the flyer and tossed it on my desk instead of the usual file 13. I knew there was something up with it (red flags: expensive quality ad work) and GIMF, too.
My assembly member in Pasadena is Anthony Portantino (916) 319-2044. I will call to tell him: Yes, banned and proud. (a Girl Scout joke)
Please don’t hate the people at Ogilvy. i used to be an ad person, too. It’s a living. It was the only job I could get that paid enough to support my family. I couldn’t walk down the street and chew gum but I was like an idiot savant with the ad making.
It’s only taken 15 years of recovery from “the life.”
05/08/2008 at 1:59 pm Permalink
” I do not regard advertising as entertainment or an art form, but as a medium of information.”
David Ogilvy
It sounds good.
BTW, this blog is the first to come up in Google. That must freak them out.
05/08/2008 at 2:37 pm Permalink
Hello, Patrizzi!
I, too, am recovering from the advertising industry. I began work in Silicon Valley at a well-known firm in 1995. I’ve been out for over 2 years now.
I don’t hate the Ogilvy people. I actually love ad people — they are some of the brightest and most creative people. Unfortunately their intelligence and creativity is wasted on nonsense.
“I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness…” — Allen Ginsberg
This blog came up first in Google? For what? What search words did you use? (George was curious.)
Your blog is lovely, by the way. Very entertaining! Your sense of humor reminds me of John Kennedy Toole. I am bookmarking it and pageflaking it.
Ann Marie
05/08/2008 at 3:25 pm Permalink
Oh, I think I see what you are saying now, Patrizzi.
When you google bpafacts.org, my blog comes up first. Ha! That is funny!
06/08/2008 at 8:33 am Permalink
Thanks, Ann Marie.
06/08/2008 at 8:43 pm Permalink
Thanks for the information. Me this theme too interests. I shall read still.
06/08/2008 at 8:49 pm Permalink
Great post! The EU says BPA is ok but I don’t really believe it. Have you read the Wash. Post article discussing how the BPA research has varied greatly, depending on who is paying for it? I found on it on Google under the search “BPA washington post”
Here’s some more reading on BPA:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Bisphenol-A-in-Plastic-Bottles-Play-It-Safe-with-Alternatives
06/08/2008 at 10:25 pm Permalink
Thanks, Billy,
I found this article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/26/AR2008042602126.html?sid=ST2008042602242
Very interesting!
Thanks
08/08/2008 at 5:32 pm Permalink
Nice…Nice. Maybe all of you paranoid schizos will be happy to do the antler dance under the full moon like you did for DDT, as you must sleep well at night knowing that you helped kill millions in Africa and Asia while brown-nosing the icon Rachel Carson. What would you clowns have as a replacement? Oh, that’s right. Nothing! You’ve not a clue.
You’re a pathetic lot of 60′s re-treads and their offspring, sucking on the tit of the Nanny State you want to live in. So, get off the patchouli oil, ditch the sandals, take a bath or shower, put on some Brogues and get with modern times because you have no hope against the big, bad, evil, cunning and omnipresent “chemical companies” that have saved more lives than your “back-to-nature” surrogates have killed.
08/08/2008 at 7:17 pm Permalink
Thanks for your comment, Dutchman.
You know I heard that rumor about Rachel Carson being wrong.
I did a google search and found this site at the top of the search results:
http://www.rachelwaswrong.org/
At first, I was swayed by what I read. But then I looked up who built that site.
What a surprise!
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute
Another front group funded by the likes of Gulf Oil, Texaco, Pfizer, Phillip Morris, etc.
That right there would make a thinking person very suspicious about the motives behind a website like rachelwaswrong.org.
09/08/2008 at 2:05 pm Permalink
I got 3 of these mailers opposing the ban on BPA sent to me so immediately a Big Money flag was raised with me. The BPAfacts.org aka American Chemistry Council is spending a lot of money trying to squash Senator Migden’s bill: SB 1713.
The bill isn’t a ban on all BPA but on the toys and childcare products laced with it. SB 1713 is also known as the “Toxin-Free Toddlers and Babies Act”. 8 states including NY are also initiating similar legislation.
A similar federal bill by Representative Edward Markey’s (D-MA) called “The Ban Poisonous Additives Act – seeks to remove the toxic chemical… from canned food… containers, which are the most significant documented source of BPA exposure for infants and children.”
BTW: According to an Environmental Working Group survey “all major infant formula manufacturers in the U.S. are using BPA …to line the metal portions of infant formula containers…”
The American Chemical Council
I wished the flyer listed what products exactly have Bisphenol A to make sure my personal household Ban on BPA tainted products hasn’t slipped.
Find your state senator here..
http://democrats.senate.ca.gov/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={EDBBE475-37FE-4760-B319-DE3B567DDD01}
..and urge a Yes on SB 1713.
Stephen
11/08/2008 at 5:14 am Permalink
Thanks for good content
11/08/2008 at 9:27 pm Permalink
Thanks for posting this. I also received this mailer and since I have recently become obsessed with plastics, found it unsettling.
When I finally got online, i found that i was not alone. I will be writing a letter as well.
15/08/2008 at 10:42 pm Permalink
Thanks for sharing that! Nice post. I just glanced through it.
http://www.direct-marketing-business.co.cc
15/08/2008 at 10:57 pm Permalink
Hi-
Dutchman- DDT is still used in a lot of countries. The choice to use or not use the stuff is in their hands.
And considering the clear evidence of the actual environmental effect of using DDT (the near extinction of some species of birds, etc.) those countries who depend on their wildlife to draw tourists and keep those millions fed (not to mention keeping game alive for food) choosing alternate methods of fighting malaria vs losing whole species of food/job sources, I think they can make their choice on their own.
As for BPA- Cheeseslave is right. The FDA is NOT trustworthy Hello? how many people had to show up with mercury poisoning before the FDA timidly hazarded a statement that “Tuna intake should be limited for children and pregnant women” only to retract even THAT wishy-washy statement after the fishing lobby screamed bloody murder. Hint- folks- ONE can of tuna PER YEAR would be plenty. I’ve got a Masters in Public Health and ya don’t WANT to know what I know about our tainted sea food supply.
The corporations are just screaming because they care more about the BPA products they’ve already got in storage and they care more about the corporate costs than the publics’ health.
If the corporations actually acted responsibly and took the stuff off the market themselves, we wouldn’t NEED to vote to ban it. But they aren’t, so we will.
17/08/2008 at 11:24 am Permalink
Thank you so much for such a fantastically written blog. I will be sharing this on Facebook and urging people to disregard the very same pamphlet you were talking about–I just got mine in the mail today and was outraged. Thanks!