|From the Breast Cancer Fund: Princess Pasta with a side of BPA|
Then I came across this review of the study on Science News. Found the words of Janet Raloff so refreshingly reasonable I wanted to put it out there. This is how we should be talking about scientific findings.
The title pretty much says it all:
BPA: What to make of pollutant-laced kids’ foods: New study fails to place its limited data in perspective.Love that. The uncertainty, the nod to context, the gentle scolding, the mild irritation. The ant hill of data out of the Breast Cancer Fund was meager in scope. Worse the authors somehow didn't even consider canned foods with even more traces BPA and remarkably left out some recent evidence bolstering the possibility continual exposure to BPA might more harmful than a single heavy dose. Yes, the former research limited to rats, you guessed it. Not sure how much stock I put in those animal studies but if I were writing up the new princess pasta work I'd def include it to beef up my case.
In any event it's reassuring that someone is actually reviewing the research in an objective manner even if it's on a website unknown to most parents wondering about that can of Spaghettios. Gotta love this summation:
The take-home here, as so often in science: It remains an open question about how to make practical use of developing data. Potentially useful information on BPA exposures and risks are emerging in dribs and drabs. One can only hope that before long, a sufficient body of data will exist on which to base health policy and our grocery lists.
It's a shame you have to troll sciency sites to find this frankness when it comes to the latest scientific findings. Anyhow, thanks, Janet. Any thoughts on say, the breastfeeding literature? Hey, how about the sibling stuff or kindergarten red-shirting?