The
California EPA made a surprising announcement earlier this month: the Developmental
and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee had declined to place Bisphenol
A on a list of chemicals known to cause birth defects.
And yet,
laws banning BPA are being considered in 20 states.
What
accounts for the California decision? What do professional toxicologists know
that lawmakers and their constituents do not? And why?
In a recent
survey of about 1,000 members of the Society of Toxicology, only 9% considered
BPA a high risk to health, nearly the same number (11%) who considered
high-fructose corn syrup a high risk. They were evenly divided between medium
and low risk - 39% and 37%, respectively.
However, when
they were asked to assess the reliability of major news organizations as
sources of information regarding toxicology, there was widespread agreement -
over 90% -- that television news and local newspapers overstate risks. Over 80%
said national newspapers overstate risk.
Is this
fair? No, but neither is life, as your parents probably told you. Facts will
convince scientists, but they will not convince the public. As risk
communications expert Peter Sandman has shown, risk, in the public arena, is
not only the likelihood of harm, but also the outrage it provokes.
It may
sound quaint, but people need to be heard. The chemical industry must not only
talk, it must also listen closely, acknowledge concerns and admitting to
genuine error if it wants the facts to have a chance.
