Flash in the Pan

NPR had a piece last night on a study suggesting a link between bisphenol A (BPA) and the development of heart disease and diabetes.

The study, appearing in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association, finds that adults with the highest levels of BPA in their urine were more than twice as likely to report having diabetes or heart disease — compared with adults with the lowest levels of the chemical in their urine.

I'm no fan of BPA, and we've been switching to food storage product that don't include it, but I think the media owes a bit more analysis to listeners. My immediate reaction was, "Wonder if that's because of people drinking a lot of soda and gaining weight?" In other words, there seems to be a correlation between the BPA levels and diseases that also have a correlation with weight and eating habits, but could a third factor cause both?

The study supposedly adjusted for such factors as weight and smoking, so perhaps it isn't a third factor. I just wish that reporters would take a step back and ask themselves whether they are emotionally suggesting a link, by choice of words and structure, even if they explicitly state that the study "does not prove a cause and effect between use of plastic food containers and the development of diabetes or heart disease." There's a difference between saying that and something like, "There could be some third factor that is the cause, for example..." Put things into perspective.

The more disturbing part of the piece was how the FDA is marching toward an official conclusion that BPA is safe, and how its preliminary report is getting roundly criticized by being too selective in the data it considered, most of which supposedly is provided by industry sources.

Labels: bisphenol A, BPA, health, safety, storage