A breakthrough in the world of BPA research gives consumers another reason to question the legitimacy of scientific studies that criticize BPA.
A researcher at the University of Missouri spent 3 years attempting to replicate earlier studies that were performed at Duke and the University of Michigan. The Missouri study concludes that “the previous series of studies are not reproducible,” according to a news article posted to ScienceDaily. That article, Previous Studies On Toxic Effects of BPA Couldn’t Be Reproduced, reports that the previous studies “claimed that exposure to BPA … resulted in yellow coat color, or agouti, offspring that were more susceptible to obesity and type 2 diabetes compared to their brown coat color, healthy siblings.”
According to ScienceDaily, researcher Cheryl Rosenfeld, an MU professor of biomedical sciences, “extended the studies to include animal numbers that surpassed the prior studies to verify that their findings were not a fluke…However, even these additional numbers of animals and extended experiments failed to reproduce the earlier findings.”
Rosenfeld’s study has been published to the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Her research relied on funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and an MU program called “Food for the 21st Century,” along with the MU’s Ofﬁce of Animal Resources, both of which are also funded by NIH.
Rather than putting an end to the huge amounts of money being poured into this unfounded war on BPA, it’s likely that this newest study will create yet another cycle of pricey – taxpayer-subsidized – research. Think about it: if the link that ties BPA to adverse affects is challenged, academics who rely on grants for their research will seek new grants, in a never-ending battle to create hype and consumer scare – thus, keeping themselves relevant, their tenure secure, their prestige at campus cocktail parties high, their studies funded, and their pockets lined with higher salaries.
Coincidentally, BPA is a familiar topic at MU: science professor Fredrick VomSaal is a longstanding critic of BPA. VomSaal is on the record speculating, falsely, that using a shatterproof baby bottle to feed an infant is the equivalent to giving the baby a birth control pill (Read more about VomSaal here, in a piece by Henry Miller for the American Spectator).
Alan Caruba over at the esteemed BPA File has also posted the ScienceDaily article. Stay tuned for more on this latest development – and remember to read any and all science news and research with a critical eye.