First, I have written to Senator Kerry, Senator Brown, and Rep. Olver asking them to aggressively push for passage of S. 593, the Ban Poisonous Additives Act of 2009. I appreciate Senator Kerry & Rep. Markey’s leadership on this issue and firmly believe that a national ban is the best way to protect kids in Massachusetts, and throughout the nation, and keep jobs here.
Second, I am drafting a proposal to provide incentives for safer alternatives. This will include the creation of an exchange for firms, both research & manufacturing, that use BPA, academics, and entrepreneurs, to develop safer alternatives and address solutions to their adoption. It is my hope that this exchange will also recommend other incentives that will help in the transition (loans for manufacturers making capital upgrades, etc.).
Just a final note … more than few times on BMG the Governor’s “legislation” has been referred to. The Governor did not file legislation, he directed DPH to promulgate regulations. Now that an administrative decision has been made, I respect the process, will abide by its outcomes. Moving forward, my efforts will be focused on crafting and passing my incentives proposal and helping the national ban get passed.
Clearly, this is just a start. I am open to any ideas from the BMG and look forward to any thoughts you all might have. I can be reached on email at benjamin.downing@state.ma.us or through my website.
Thank you very much for your post, Senator, as always, and for the very helpful link to the Globe piece by Elizabeth Cooney, which provides much more complete information than the State House News Service clip that was the basis for previous discussion.
<
p>If you support S. 593, the Ban Poisonous Additives Act of 2009, “A bill to ban the use of bisphenol A in food containers, and for other purposes,” at the federal level, for which you deserve applause, you really as a matter of logic should support similar legislation at the state level. The health of your own constituents is at least as important as the health of people elsewhere in the U.S.
<
p>Your stated reason for supporting federal legislation but not state legislation is because the latter, in the absence of the former, may push local chemical manufacturers to relocate to a different state. But that really doesn’t make any sense. Local chemical companies can still continue to manufacture Bishphenol-A and sell it wherever legally permitted under the Governor’s proposed regulations. More to the point, even if they move they still won’t be able to sell it in baby bottles in Massachusetts. So there is no economic reason for them to move, or not to move, whatever the result of the proposed regulations. The only effect on local jobs will be the tiny amount of local Bishphenol-A production used in children’s baby bottles and so forth sold in Massachusetts.
<
p>Given the amount of research that suggests that Bishphenol-A is dangerous for very small children — who, let us not forget, have no ability to choose whether they want to ingest this chemical or not — this is an eminently sensible public health initiative which is unlikely to have any substantive effect on local jobs. It is also a far less extensive measure than the national legislation you say you support. As a matter of logic and leadership you should reconsider your position and support the Governor on this issue.
<
p>As a matter of politics, you should put the youngest residents of your district — all of whom have parents who vote and take a very dim view of legislators who knowingly put the health of their young children at risk — ahead of the PR interests of a big chemical company in your district.
Thanks for your willingness to stay engaged about this, Senator Downing. I expect it’s hard sledding.
<
p>As a physician and health policy analyst, I have to agree with the folks who basically take the position that the “right” thing to do on this topic is fairly self-evident. Support the ban on BPA at every level, and work with the affected industries in your district to mitigate the impact. On this topic, like many health and environment topics, there will never be anything like complete agreement; too many people have a stake in the status quo for them to go quietly with the science, which at this point is quite clear on the negative health effects of BPA. But the science is as clear as it’s going to get. At this point, we’re talking about how to ban BPA, rather than whether to ban it.
<
p>Given that, my personal expectation for legislators who I respect (and you are one such) is that the policy conforms to science, not the other way round. If BPA should be banned, then ban it and help the affected minimize the impact. What other, safer plasticizers can they use? What products can they make with BPA that wouldn’t be used in food or medical devices? Things like that are where you can provide leadership in making answers happen, rather than reflexively acting to protect the interests of industries. (who should also be making those same right choices, but often instead turn to legislatures to protect them from the bad, bad environmentalists. Instead of giving them what they want, why don’t you tell them to cowboy up and change their product? The sooner they come out with a safer product, the further ahead of the curve they’ll be when BPA is banned).
Companies must adapt to the any future ban on BPA (we can expect it is inevitable, given the science on the subject). Luckily, there are many baby bottle manufacturers with BPA-free products already out there (and clearly labeled as such), so parents can know if what they are buying is safe. Even Sunoco has taken positive steps toward lowering BPA exposure in children under age 3.
<
p>The issue, as tamoroso pointed out, is how to ban the chemical. Sen. Downing is surely concerned about the possibility that any DPH regs issued would result in a limited ban on BPA, rather than an all out ban. Toddlers still ingest BPA when they eat, just like the rest of us, so why just ban baby products? If companies like Wal Mart and CVS refuse to sell products containing BPA, why the steps toward limited bans by state and local governments? Consumers need to feel safe, and if retailers are leading the way in protecting us then we need to worry about who our government is listening to. We know the first FDA report on BPA is slanted, and after its reversal to a stance of “some concern,” consumers are still left to fend for themselves when it comes to picking out BPA-free products. A full federal ban, logically, does not equal support for Massachusetts DPH regulations that only amount to a political gesture by Governor Patrick.
Having actually been in the trenches on this issue, I can tell you that food processors want alternatives, but cannot find them at a reasonable price.
<
p>Kudos where kudos are due. Bitching is easy. Policy is hard.
<
p>Now make it work.