Still, BPA's deadliness is not all that well-established. In a statement sent to DOTmed, the American Chemistry Council, an industry lobby group, pointed out that a 2008 European Union risk assessment concluded that "BPA does not possess any significant carcinogenic potential."

"[The PCP's] report claims numerous BPA-related health effects including cancer, but cites 'low-dose' studies that other credible scientific bodies have dismissed. The FDA, along with 10 other regulatory agencies from around the world, have found these studies unacceptable for use in risk assessments due to methodological flaws and continue to reaffirm that sound science supports the safety of BPA," the council said.


But panel chief Leffall cautions that absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence, and that when something poses a potential health risk it should be thoroughly researched.

"The evidence and research that has been done found that BPA isn't definitely a cancer factor," he acknowledged. "You may look at an agent and find now that there's no relationship, you believe, to cancer, but don't stop looking at it."

The overall thrust of the report brought cheers from some corners.

"I think it's on exactly the right track," Revere, the nom de blog of a writer at the popular public health blog Effect Measure, wrote to DOTmed in an e-mail. "The people I know, who are cancer researchers like me, agree with it."

But the report chafed others. Wallace Sampson, an alternative medicine critic, past chief of medical oncology at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center and professor emeritus at Stanford University School of Medicine, thinks the problem is that when it comes to science, there aren't consistently negative or positive results. Studies will follow a curve, with some showing no effect and some a positive or negative effect.

"BPA has been looked at, and although there are some studies that are positive for carcinogenicity, overall it's insignificant," he said.

"Asbestos, cigarette smoking, the real carcinogens, have been found out already. Any others that are going to be found will be of negligible importance."

In addition, Sampson was especially critical of report passages referring to possible dangers of electromagnetic radiation from cell phone use or living near power lines, a topic covered extensively by the panel.

"Once you get kinds of comments like that in the report, you know they don't know what they're talking about," he said.

He pointed out that low-energy waves emitted by cell phones do not produce enough energy to cause the chromosomal damage required for cancer growth. No mechanism has been shown that they can do this.

More Industry Headlines