U.S. PIRG Consumer Blog: Industry campaigns to "save the rubber duckies," meanwhile governments act on toxic bisphenol-a

When the risk of harm from a chemical or an activity is not fully known, we subscribe to the precautionary principle-- ban it or limit exposure anyway "even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically." The chemical industry does not agree. It has apparently hired an astroturf front group with "consumer" in its name to walk around Congress wearing "save the rubber duckies" buttons in opposition to our efforts in the CPSC Reform Act to ban toxic phthalates in children's products. (You can't make this stuff up.) And by the way, we can provide the group with phthalate-free rubber duckies.

Meanwhile, the government of Canada and a U.S. advisory committee are acting more sensibly on another chemical, bisphenol-a, that also poses threats.

It is encouraging to see that Canada (New York Times) may follow the lead of San Francisco, which has enacted PIRG-backed legislation limiting exposure to the chemical bisphenol-a, a common ingredient in plastic baby bottles and other bottles known to be a hormone disrupter in animals. A new draft report from the U.S. National Toxicology Program also finds that the effects of BPA found in animals could "possibly" extend to humans:

Recognizing the lack of data on the effects of bisphenol A in humans and despite the limitations in the evidence for "low" dose effects in laboratory animals discussed in more detail below, the possibility that bisphenol A may alter human development cannot be dismissed.

UPDATE: In May 2007, under threat of an industry lawsuit, San Francisco repealed its bisphenol-a ban.