Follow the Money: BPA Makers to Gross $8 Billion Thanks to FDA Rejecting Ban
Producers of toxic BPA are now boasting $8 billion in sales for 2012 thanks to the FDA rejecting a potential ban on the cancer-linked chemical on March 30th. According to GlobalData, manufacturers will produce 4.7 million metric tons of BPA this year to be dispersed into the daily lives of millions worldwide. BPA now goes into everything: plastic bottles, canned foods, DVDs, plastic wrap, and much more. Despite being linked to about as many serious health conditions as the amount of products it contaminates, the FDA has decided once again to side with mega corporations over protecting the health of the people.
Even Campbell’s Soup and the Heinz corporation are removing BPA from their products in an effort to reclaim consumers who are fully aware of the issues surrounding BPA. California is also banning the substance from baby bottles and sippy cups in attempts to protect newborn babies whose developing bodies are majorly affected by the estrogen-mimicking chemical. But the FDA? They recognize that BPA may be breeding disease among the public, but they’re still perfectly okay with letting it contaminate the food supply. Instead of taking action over the threat, the FDA decided to pick at the hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that have linked BPA to everything from cancer (in over 130 studies) to depression and diabetes.
“While evidence from some studies have raised questions as to whether BPA may be associated with a variety of health effects, there remain serious questions about these studies, particularly as they relate to humans,” the FDA says.
This is the same agency that has no trouble going after nutritional supplements containing 100% organic and natural super-nutrients that have been used for thousands of years. It is also the same government powerhouse that has allowed for mercury to lurk in the processed food supply for years despite major consumer groups demanding action. The list can go on and on — the FDA simply does not seem to care about legitimately threatening items like GMOs and artificial sweeteners, so why would they care about BPA? After all, the carcinogenic chemical has the backing of an $8 billion industry.
 | Natural Society staff contribution |
Well – Like the rest of our completely corrupted government – Lobbyists OWN the FDA's study.
I've known, for years now, the FDA is there to facilitate the needs for corporations to get away with (literally) murder. I does NOT protect us. It protects companies who want to sell cheep pharmaceuticals and implants – and don't want to be sued for the damage that they KNOW they are going to do – also – The FDA serves to protect them from time and money-consuming TRIALS – FDA's New job – waive them and limit company liability. Welcome to the United States of Profit.
Dr Sherry Rogers – author of many great health books – see Amazon – has preached the evils of BPA for many years. She now states that by the age of 6 today's children have as many toxins in them at levels it used to take 40 years to accumulate. This may be the first generation with a shorter lifespan then its' parents.
BPA is everywhere. My family started using glass straws and glass tupperwear. It’s our first move to going green and healthy. I like the products from simply straws http://bit.ly/simplystraws
Perhaps this is a way of culling the population in a manner that does not appear openly genocidal and where illnesses directly related to this will not show up for several years into the future. Pretty hard to prove why you have a terminal illness ten years or more down the road. Not taking mercury out of vaccinations is another one.
Make those specific deciding FDA Officials liable financially for the health consequences as well as the BPA companies and watch how fast the support fades when the financial incentives become financial liabilities.
what a load of crap. All those schmucks care about is money.
I agree, that's why the ONLY way to fix this is to stop buying their poison. Then they will get rid of it – for the money.
We apparently have a ban in Canada do to the known risks of this toxic substance. One wonders how the F.D.A. ignores why other Countries have banned it?
I believe it is not only the money for the producers but monies in the health care industry as well.
I guess it still boils down to what bea41660 says!
you got that right bead4160, nothing but filthy lucre. Lets just hope for the saying, what gos around comes around.
As always… it's follow the money[filthy lucre].