More BPA stuff… and a bonus!

While it is likely that the studies used were funded by those with a vested interest in the outcome (shock and awe), I’m not sure exactly which study is in question. I’m assuming (a bad habit to pick up) it is the NTP report I posted about previously.

But critics questioned why the FDA based that ruling on three studies funded by the chemical industry, all of which found BPA to be safe at current exposure levels. Hundreds of independent studies in animals and cells suggest the estrogen-like chemical poses serious risks. [via usatoday]

What really chaps me here is symptomatic of the mass media in general, no link or actual reference to the original work. I know that 90+% of their readers wouldn’t do anything with the report, but it would be nice, and responsible, if they linked or made specific reference to the work (or study) being reported. It’s not that difficult! They go on to mention a study in JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association, connecting BPA to heart disease and diabetes, but again fail to link to the original source. Only by following a link to another story do I find a link to the original work, for which I give them props! Go ahead, see how long it takes you to find it.

Maybe I’m not as patient as I once may have been (possibly) or perhaps I’ve been jaded a bit (highly likely), but I’d really like to see responsible and accurate reporting of significant and insignificant science stories in the mass media rather than the marketing of ‘news’ through fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD). Maybe it’s just too much to ask…

OK, I feel better now…

Comment (1) Add yours ↓
  1. jaxtell

    I like the link to the FUD. A little off topic, but here’s another link from it that as a chemist I find humorous yet utterly depressing.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax

    23 September 2008

Your Comment