Obama’s campaign spiel touted sound science yet he now bows to whims of green activists

WASHINGTON, D.C. — When he was inaugurated as President, Barack Obama told the world he aimed to “restore science to its rightful place.” His implication was that his predecessor had put political considerations ahead of scientific findings on issues such as stem cell research and global warming.

---

But on at least one occasion President Obama’s own administration put politics ahead of the best available science. This issue was the safety of bisphenol A — better known as BPA — a chemical that is used in plastic products, including baby bottles. The chemical is safe. Despite this, a campaign has been waged against it by activist environmental groups hoping to demonize and ban it. When given the chance to rely on science, some in the Obama Administration have bowed to politics.

It is valued by consumers for its utility, stability and safety

Here’s what has happened. BPA is one of the most widely used chemical compounds in existence. In addition to baby bottles you can find it in plastic glass, children’s toys, medical equipment, food containers and more. It is valued by consumers for its utility, stability and safety. In part because of its widespread use, it is also one of the most studied chemicals in history with three decades of scientific inquiry into its safety and effect on human health. After all, parents understandably want to be confident that any chemical in their baby’s plastic bottle isn’t harmful. So what have the scientific inquiries found? Back in 1982, the National Cancer Institute’s National Toxicology Program studied it and determined that it was not a carcinogen. The Environmental Protection Agency studied it in the late 1980s and determined it was safe. The Food and Drug Administration determined in 2008 that BPA was not harmful to humans.

Despite study after study confirming BPA’s safety to humans, political pressure continues to influence policy decisions

As my colleague Jon Entine reports in The Troubling Case of Bisphenol A: At What Point Should Science Prevail, “over the past 40 years, BPA has undergone more than 4,500 evaluations and counting. It has been declared safe based on peer-reviewed scientific evidence by every major government agency in every major industrial country in the world.” French health regulators are typically more cautious than their counterparts in the United States. Despite this, the French health minister said of BPA last year, “there are reliable studies, which conclude, with current scientific data, that baby bottles containing this chemical compound are innocuous.” One might think that if science were in its rightful place, that would be the end of the discussion. But in mid-2009 officials at the FDA, appointed by the Obama Administration, bowed to activist pressure and elected to review the agency’s 2008 evaluation. This decision inflated the hopes of activists that the FDA might target BPA for banishment. But the exercise turned out to be a waste of valuable time and resources as FDA investigators confirmed what the science had been showing for decades — that BPA is safe and that it is not proven to harm kids or adults. Despite study after study confirming BPA’s safety to humans, political pressure continues to influence policy decisions. Under the Obama Administration’s stimulus bill, for example, the National Institutes of Health have been tasked with doling out tens of millions of dollars for further study of BPA. These funds will provide further ammunition for the activists claiming that doubt remains about the safety of the compound. This is a shame. The nation has many pressing research needs — in health, energy, geo-engineering, nanotechnology and more. To shovel valuable dollars to investigate BPA further is bad policy and bad politics. Surely there are other worthy projects out there in need of support. After striking out repeatedly at the scientific level, the activists pushing a ban on BPA continue their media campaign and are now pushing legislation at the state and federal level to get what they want. If the Obama Administration wants to make a stand for science, restoring it to its rightful place, it can start by opposing the continued demonization of a safe and useful product.