JANUARY 8 / Wolf! . . . Wolf! . . . Wolf?

THE CHRONICLE today called for faster FDA review of the alleged health risks of bisphenol A, "a common plastic additive."

Not that the editorial board needs any such review. Its mind is made up: The additive is "linked . . . to cancer, infertility, behavioral problems and metabolic disorders in lab animals."

When it comes to the developing brains of babies and small children, the precautionary principle trumps wait-and-see reserve.

Okay. Fine. Maybe the editorialists are right. But you know why I don't simply take their word for it?

Because I don't trust them. And you shouldn't either.

A legitimate function of editorial boards is to worry about things like this, to weigh the evidence, and to advise the rest of us which environmental threats to worry about and which to dismiss as false alarms.

To do that, however, they need our trust. And to win and hold our trust, they need us to believe two important things.

The first is that they are in some sense like us -- that they share our understanding of how the world works and, to some extent, our values. And that, accordingly, they weigh evidence and make decisions the same way we do. 

That's simply not true. As I've said many times, they are in Houston, Texas, but not of Houston, Texas. They share the values of other tribes, not ours, and think far differently. 

The second thing the editorialists needs us to believe is that they are impartial. But they are not. They always agree with the alarmists. In every environmental debate, they stand shoulder-to-shoulder with environmental prosecutors, never with the defense.

The poor readers who are of Houston, Texas, are left rudderless. We can't trust the Chronicle, and we don't have time to research the issues ourselves.

So I read today's editorial, sighed, and went on with my life, still uncertain, annoyed as ever at the Chronicle for demanding my assent without first winning my trust.

There are other resources out there, of course, and one day I may take the time to research the issue myself.

Meanwhile, the precautionary principle tells me that if we do what the most radical environmentalists want, our economy will be hurt and our lives impoverished in many ways, economic and noneconomic.

For what?

To mitigate real costs and risks? Or simply to satisfy a powerful interest group's insatiable lust for public money and public power?

UPDATE: Thanks for the links from blogHouston and Lose an Eye.

UPDATE: I rewrote the headline. Neat, huh? 

UPDATE: The letter mentioned in the comment below can be found here.

 

 

Comments

[kevin whited]

The Chron ran this letter today:

"No need for BPA regulation

"The Thursday Chronicle editorial "Plastic barrier / FDA will review plastic additive, but won't say when" causes unnecessary concern about the safety of bisphenol A (BPA).

"BPA is one of the most tested materials in use today and, for more than 40 years, extensive scientific investigation has been conducted by government, academic and private-sector researchers to evaluate its safety. The majority of this scientific evidence shows no basis for heath concerns in humans at the very low levels of exposure people actually experience.

"The fact remains that all materials intended for use with food must meet stringent FDA safety standards before they are allowed on the market. The governments of the U.S., European Union and Japan, as well as international groups such as the World Health Organization, have evaluated the ongoing research regarding potential exposure to BPA and have found no need for further regulation.

"The consumer product goods industry is dedicated to providing high quality and safe products to consumers. We continue to monitor research and regulatory developments to ensure consumer confidence in our products and are committed to advancing the body of scientific evidence related to BPA.

"ROBERT E. BRACKETT
"Senior vice president and chief science and regulatory affairs officer, Grocery Manufacturers Association, and former director, FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), Washington, D.C."