Last updated on 2011.08.09
The South Dakota Legislature has defeated two measures dealing with bisphenol A, an organic compound used in making plastic. Bisphenol A is a nearly ubiquitous chemical; it's in at least 93% of us from environmental exposure. I probably have a double dose from all my plastic water bottles, which my lovely wife insists I should replace with metal. (Only problem: those metal bottles don't bounce back after I squeeze the water out.)
A wide variety of studies suggest bisphenol A isn't good for people. Wikipedia's article on bisphenol A currently has 229 footnotes and more than a dozen other links for your scientific perusal. Canada has declared it a toxic substance, and there's been pressure on manufacturers to at least remove bisphenol A from baby bottles and other children's products.
Our Legislature, however, remains mostly unconcerned. A couple weeks ago, House Health and Human Services killed HB 1254, which would have banned bisphenol A from food containers. That measure died 7&ndash5. Then Thursday, the Senate killed SCR 7, a resolution that merely urged Congress (respectfully!) to ban bisphenol A from children's products. Ah, but SCR 7 mentions Canada and the European Union, so that probably set off socialism alarms. SCR 7 failed by just one vote, 16&ndash17.
The state Dems dropped bombs on the Republicans for killing this resolution:
Senator Angie Buhl (D-Sioux Falls) lamented the resolution's demise. "This session has demonstrated that many Republicans care only that children are born — not that once born, children are provided a healthy, productive life. Ensuring the health and safety of our children should always be a priority. Senate Republicans who voted against this bill showed otherwise" [Senator Angie Buhl, "Senate Republicans Want to Expose Kids to Toxic Chemicals," SDDP.org, 2011.03.03].
But worth noting: two of my favorite Republicans, District 9 holy-rollin' Rep. Steve Hickey and my own District 8 neighbor Rep. Patricia Stricherz, supported both HB 1254 and SCR 7. Hickey and Stricherz (sounds like a fun 2018 gubernatorial ticket!) both signed on as sponsors to SCR 7 (as did perhaps the oddest possible House couple, Kloucek and Kopp). Hickey and Stricherz also both voted for HB 1254 in committee.
you da human!
Long term damage to education: check
Crippling nursing homes: check
Cutting the middle class: check
Disabling reproductive rights for young women: check
Shirking the hard stuff: check
Regulating safety: Not so fast there buddy, someone's pocket book could get inconvenienced or hurt!
I take issue with what Buhl said. I'm all in favor of ensuring our children have the ~opportunity~ for safety, health, education, and a productive life... but you can't just provide productive lives. You have to earn them.
It's looking more and more like BPA bans are a red-herring anyway. Even BPA-Free Plastics leech chemicals
, the effects of which are still unknown. If we're going to kick this pig, let's kick it right.
I wanted to take some time to respond to this post. First, I would like to thank Cory for posting this to get the information out to our community. I sit on the Health and Human Services Committee and heard the extensive testimony on this bill. I wish to tell you that we had excellent testimony that day from upstanding, dedicated folks that pay very close attention to what BPA is and how it affects humans and our environment once these empty bottles are taken to the landfills. Supporting testimony came from Urvashi Rangan of Consumer Reports, and Dr. Barry Timm, PHD of the Divison of Basic Biomedical Sciences those opposing were from the International Bottled Water Associatin and the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
BPA has been used for years in clear plastic bottles and as food-can liners. The chemical has potential links to an array of human health problems, including diabetes, heart diesase, cancers, infertility, obesity, sexual problems and neurological disorders. Studies show that 93% of Americans have BPA in their urine and suggested that BPA stays in the body longer than previously believed. The explanation for this was due to the continued consumption of BPA that we have on a daily basis.
Consumer Reports published in their December 2009 issue ( this was also stated in testimony) that the results of testing done of BPA in canned foods showed high amounts of BPA levels were found in a wide variety of food and beverage containers. Their tests, which included canned foods such as soups, juice, tuna and green beans ( NO! not green beans!), as well as infant formula, found that almost all of the 19 name-brand foods contained measurable levels of BPA. It was also found that canned foods labled "organic" and even some labeled as "BPA-free" cans showed levels (varing widely), containing BPA.
Personally, I felt that since we had received so much information in committee that we should have deferred this bill until the next committee day, to give us all the opportunity to properly review everything before we make a decision. This is a serious and very real situation. My request was denied.
Also, Rep. Fienstein tried to smoke this bill out but is was not supported enough to make that happen.
Hopefully, next session this bill will be revived and we can again hear additional testimony and be given the opportunity to review it all before making a decision.
to a our fearful leaders in pierre--thanks for nothing!
Bisphenol is a very bad chemical ....worst being its ability to shift newborn immune system to TH2 side .....thus weakens the TH1 side / It is the TH1 immune system that does neuronal pruning, so when you weaken that system you increase the kids chances of getting autism!
so thank you for nothing!
WOW ---china ,malaysia,canada, and ALL the european countires have banned bisphenols... but usa thinks it is good for kids ... corruption???....thats the only reason i can think of for why usa or SD doesnt ban bisphenols.....what else reason would there be?
shame on all of us!