The BPA ban that passed the California assembly has been reversed, and I want to know why. As a Californian and a mom, I'm having one of those "mad as hell" moments and I'm looking for an explanation that has, thus far, not been readily available.
I was positively giddy in July when it looked like California was on its way to banning toxins in products that are intended for children three years old and younger. Sippy cups, bottles, and formula packaging were supposed to have been BPA-free by July 2012 (still not soon enough), but now some of my state's Senators think a little deadly toxin might be good in your kid's sippy cup.
I wonder if the Senators give their own children and grandchildren BPA-free products?
I've been searching for any reasoning why the California Senate would make such a devastating decision against the interest of the health of our children, but instead just keep finding more articles pointing out the harmful nature of the toxin that has been banned in other countries and states instead.
Meanwhile, hundreds of prior studies link BPA to cardiovascular disease, intestinal problems, brain cell connection interference, increased risks of reproductive and immune system diseases and disorders, problems with liver function testing, interruptions in chemotherapy treatment, premature puberty, polycystic ovarian syndrome, and erectile dysfunction and male sexual problems. BPA is found in the bodies of 93 percent of Americans and 90 percent of all American newborns.
Quite frankly, this should be taken up on the federal level, but if you're in California, I suggest you do what I just did and find your State Senator and ask them how in the world this could have happened.
What kind of crazy person doesn't think we need to remove toxic substances from products intended for children?
Image via ramsey everydaypants/Flickr