Seeking food safety, getting human harm

Washington Times: "The controversial amendment, drafted by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, would set up a bureaucratic waiver process through which companies would have to spend gobs of money to prove there are no better alternatives to BPA

But proving a negative is, well, pretty much impossible. It will be easier for manufacturers to simply use inferior, more expensive packaging and then simply cross their fingers in the hope that it doesn't result in increased food-borne contamination.

Moreover, lawmakers cannot be sure that alternatives will be any safer. BPA has been studied extensively for decades with no evidence of any harm to humans, but it would take decades more to study a replacement product.

Instead of arbitrarily removing products from the marketplace, lawmakers should have to prove that products are truly dangerous, something never shown for BPA, even after a massive amount of government and privately funded studies around the world.

A joint Competitive Enterprise Institute-Cascade Policy Institute study has reviewed the science and shown that regulation isn't warranted. BPA's alleged risk to humans is mostly based on studies of rodents that were administered massive doses, often by injection. The relevance to humans who are exposed to trace amounts in food is highly questionable. Moreover, humans metabolize BPA quickly, while rodents do not. Many substances - such as chocolate - kill rats, but are safe for humans. But we don't ban chocolate.