Plastic Soup

Expert on the air

May 12th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

As I wrote earlier, I was interviewed by Radio Kassa about a number of things, including the detrimental effects of Bisphenol A in baby bottles.

I received a phone call today … In ten day’s time, a toxicologist will be on the radio to comment on my allegations. His stance is that this is all nonsense. I was asked to comment after he had his say—by telephone, since my offer to come to the studio was refused—I agreed; but I sent the following email to the editor:

Dear Dieuwertje,

Many thanks for the invitation to comment on Rolaf van Leeuwen’s remarks made on Thursday May 7th. Although he has not yet made his point, I understand from your comments that he will claim my concerns to be unfounded—that Bisphenol A (BPA) is not that harmful, and that the levels at which children are exposed to it (through drinking from baby bottles containing BPA) does not endanger their health in any way.

I am a writer and have been immersed in the subject for a number of months. I base my opinion on my own commonsense and on the reports I have seen with my own eyes.

However, there is the concern that experts like Mr. Van Leeuwen can brush me aside as someone trying to ferment a disturbance in order to drum up more attention for the book. I think the problem deserves more than that.

I believe that Radio Kassa would be well-advised to perform worthy of a consumer advocacy program and seek the opinion of another toxicologist who does believe that Bisphenol A is harmful to human health (in the amounts to which we are exposed to it today) and to thus challenge Mr. Van Leeuwen.

In challenging Mr. Van Leeuwen, I can only put forward the facts that I have encountered during my own research:

−    Professor Frederick Vom Saal has shown that 93% of the independent surveys on Bisphenol A prove precisely how harmful it is (204 surveys). On the other hand, 100% of the surveys commissioned by the chemical industry claim it is safe (14 surveys).

−    The European Union based its opinion on research financed by the chemical industry, even when they once again stretched the limiting value of BPA. While on the other hand, 150 reports demonstrated its harmful effects.

−    Countries such as Canada and Japan have already banned baby bottles containing Bisphenol A. Canada has also put BPA on the list of banned chemical substances. More and more states in the US have attempted to enforce bans on BPA.

−    BPA is an estrogen-imitator (as is ethinylestradiol for example). The latter is used in contraceptives. A daily dose of 20 μg in women will guarantee a failure to achieve pregnancy. Measurements have shown that small children take in up to 14.7 μg of Bisphenol A a day due to “leaking” polycarbonate products such as baby bottles. In this way, boys as well as girls, are on the pill so-to-speak … with all its consequences. These “small amounts” can indeed accrue; causing damage.

−    Imagine Mr. Van Leeuwen to be right and the 7% of scientists who have shown that BPA is not that damaging are also not wrong … The question still remains: why do we continue to use a “not so damaging” substance in baby products (or any product), when there are harmless alternatives available?

I hope that you intend to encourage a serious discussion. This exceptionally important subject demands it. But you can only serve it adequately when you allow debate by equal partners: facing  each other, and both in the studio.

This does not mean I don’t stand behind my opinion and that I would not put forward the case if you chose to make a one-sided opinion heard.

I remain disappointed that I have not been invited to come to the studio when I could at least be face-to-face with Mr. Van Leeuwen while talking to him.

I would appreciate it if you could please bring this issue up in your next editorial meeting.

Looking forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Jesse Goossens

I’ll keep you posted!

Lees deze tekst in het Nederlands