The Chapel Hill consensus statement on BPA released today underscores, by way of contrast, how hopeless and corrupt the ongoing review of BPA by the NIH Center for The Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR) really is. In today's consensus statement, also funded by the NIH, 38 independent specialists in BPA toxicity from around the world concluded that BPA presents a clear risk to human health.
The scientific process that produced the consensus statement shows what an objective, fair, and competent review of BPA toxicity should look like. In contrast, the federal (CERHR) review to evaluate BPA's reproductive risks, that will culminated in a panel meeting on Monday, August 6, in Arlington Virginia, represents the last gasp of a terminally corrupted process that has no chance of reaching a valid scientific conclusion about BPA toxicity.
Sciences International (SI), the company that prepared the initial CERHR background review of BPA toxicity, was fired last spring over allegations of conflict of interest - SI had a history of working for the makers of BPA. Incredibly, since that time, the CERHR review of the BPA science actually became more biased. As just one example, in the current review document, federally funded research showing BPA toxicity at very low doses was rejected at 3 times the rate of industry funded studies. This has produced something of an uproar in scientific circles. The CERHR document falls far short of satisfying the core federal requirements for the evaluation of scientific research spelled out in the Data Quality Act.
There is one clear course of action for the National Toxicology Program as it finalizes its BPA monograph. Dump the CERHR process and its hopelessly biased and corrupted science, and follow the advice of the 38 leading experts in the world on BPA toxicity. Classify BPA for what it is - a clear risk to human reproduction.
