FDA Gets It Right on Chemical

Sometimes the activists go so far overboard that even risk-averse agencies like the Food and Drug Administration have no choice but to draw the line in the science. And that’s what happened on Friday when the FDA rejected an outrageously unscientific petition by a radical, but well-known, environmental activist group.

In a piece for Forbes, I give credit where it is due.

In its December 7, 2011, press release, the activist group, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) wrote, “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has committed to decide by March 31, 2012 whether a chemical that causes brain damage in developing babies, infants and young children should be banned from use in packaging for food and drinks.”

Well, last week, the FDA came out with its verdict: NRDC’s petition declined. The controversy should be settled: Bisphenol A (BPA) is safe for use in its current food packaging and contact applications. Ban denied. The risk-averse FDA would not have left a product on the market if it were dangerous, as NRDC has been claiming.

Is the controversy over? I think it should be.

At this point, this issue should be laid to rest. The federal government has spent tens of millions of dollars investing in research on BPA, already one of the most well-studied chemicals on earth, and the FDA has squandered it’s limited resources on multiple safety assessments, including the one litigated by the NRDC. And yet, despite the FDA’s unequivocal denial of the NRDC’s petition, it is now spinning what for them is really bad news.

Read the full piece here.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a communications and research foundation supportive of a strong national defense and dedicated to providing free market solutions to today’s public policy problems. We believe that the principles of a free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility provide the greatest hope for meeting the challenges facing America in the 21st century.