If the industry is correct in maintaining that BPA is safest for us, they should be able to back that claim up with fact-based science, not fear mongering!

I wasn;t so much comapring BPA to vaccines as I was comparing the “spokemodel” tactic. The vaccine industry recently recruited a popular actress mommy to sing the praises of vaccines to offset damage from public opinion. The BPA indisutry appears to want to do the same.

Thanks for the warning about a potential future pro-BPA campaign. I’m a chemist and in a publication from the American Chemical Society scientists have been having this same argument: a contingent who promote BPA vs. a contingent who work for its regulation/ban. I am absolutely, 100%, pro-ban. It is an unnecessary chemical and the results of an overwhelming number of rigorous studies show both the harmful effects of BPA and the ubiquitous exposure of our populations, and especially children, to BPA. If industry groups fail to recognize that this legitimate concern needs to be addressed I believe that they will lose market share. People are sick (literally and figuratively) of chemical contamination in their food, surroundings and possessions. However, I also think that those of us who are against BPA should not sit idly by while an ad campaign is run for something that we believe to be so harmful. So thank you for spreading the word.

I have a concern, however, with your comparing a pro-BPA campaign to the pro-vaccine campaign. Unlike BPA, there is an abundance of scientific evidence that vaccines are safe and effective. To be sure, debate on this issue is a positive thing, anytime we try to “improve” nature we need to be continuously on the look-out for unintended consequences. So I understand your concerns, and I believe there is a lot we can do to make these vaccines safer, but I think that comparing BPA and vaccines is inaccurate.

Again, thank you for spreading the word about the pro-BPA campaing – may that beastly chemical go away and never come back.