The report states that...
- 92 percent of all reports [evaluating BPA] funded independent from the chemical industry found adverse affects.18
- 100 percent of the industry-funded scientific reports evaluating the risks of BPA exposure found no significant
impact.19
source: Frederick S. vom Saal and Wade V. Welshons, "Large Effects From Small
Exposures. II. The Importance of Positive Controls in Low-Dose Research on
Bisphenol A." Environmental Research 100, January 2006.
...and also notes some already existing and widely-used substitutes for BPA -
- Polyamide: Polyamide is used instead of BPA in hard plastic bottles. For example, Born Free sells BPA-free baby
bottles using this honey-colored plastic.
- Tritan copolyester: In 2008, Nalgene began using BPA-free Tritan copolyester in its hard plastic sports bottles.
- In the U.S., Eden Foods uses a BPA-free can to pack all of its products except for tomatoes. The cans have a lining made from natural oils and resins.
There's a strong focus in the report (coming as it does from an investment company) on the risks to shareholders in the companies from failure to act before other companies do, and before any potential new regulations are instituted. Will that get the companies to move though, when it's already been clearly demonstrated (at least here in the US) that the chemical and plastics industry can, for all intents and purposes, simply dictate policy themselves?
There's also a section at the end of the report detailing steps already taken by Eden Foods, Whole Foods Market and Nalgene in going BPA-free in the products they make and sell.
Nice read, check it out if you get a chance. If you just want to take a quick look at the overall scorecard listing company names and grades, it appears here. |
