From Michael Shaw, Shaw’s Eco-Logic, a law that brings some sense, balance and yes, logic, to the environmental and chemical debates, a new post, “More good news on BPA“:

Leave it to Health Canada to finally put a stake through the heart of the BPA fear-mongering nonsense. Those of you who have been following this issue have often read that Canada protects the health of its citizens ever so much better than our own FDA. Since EWG and NRDC are fond of promoting this idea, let’s see what the good scientists at Health Canada discovered…

They tested the following classes of products for BPA:

• Baby food prepackaged in glass jars
• Canned powdered infant formula
• Bottled water

In all cases, dozens of products and different brands were tested, and in all cases, levels were exceedingly low. This new data confirms Health Canada’s previous conclusion that exposure to BPA through food packaging uses is not expected to pose a health risk to the general population, including newborns and young children.

In fact, Health Canada stated that an adult would have to drink approximately 1,000 liters (264 US gallons) of water from polycarbonate water cooler bottles every day to approach the science-based safe intake limit for BPA recently established in Canada.

The Canadian Press’s online headline, “Health Canada detects BPA in jarred baby food, water; levels considered safe.”

How much you want to bet that most papers drop the part after the semicolon?

The thing about modern science and technology? It’s very, very sensitive. It can almost detect anything in anything, the tiniest amounts. Stories that just report, “X detects Y,” are meaningless.

Following up on Monday’s item on the campaign against BPA, here’s some more about the trial lawyer/media/activist combine that targets specific chemicals and industries:

Add Wisconsin to the states where a legislative ban in now being considered. What took so long? After all, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel campaigned against the chemical in a series of “investigative” stories clearly designed to win journalism prizes.

Last April Rowan Scarborough wrote a hard-hitting, admittedly partisan piece,  “The Great Left Smear Machine,” in the conservative weekly “Human Events” demonstrating the connection among a PR firm, Fenton Communications, activists like the Environmental Working Group, and the trial lawyer industry in targeting the chemical, which is used to strengthen plastics. The gist from Scarborough:

In 2007, a group called the Environmental Working Group sponsored a study that said BPA is hazardous to your health. Fenton Communications describes the working group as partner and client. David Fenton sits on its board of directors. There had been previous anti-BPA studies, but this one — with Fenton’s backing — got the ball rolling.

Quickly, Fenton successfully placed anti-BPA stories across the liberal news media. Another group, the Center for Health, Environment and Justice, spearheaded an anti-BPA petition drive. It asked citizens to demand that baby bottle producers cease using the chemical.

The CHEJ has been funded in part by the Tides Foundation, which helped Fenton set up its Environmental Media Services. Tides also has received George Soros money. The San Francisco-based Tides is another Fenton client, and it funds a number of environmental groups who are paying clients of Fenton Communications as well.

By 2008, the reporters were in a BPA frenzy. With the news media onboard and a grass roots effort under way to find BPA victims, a perfect storm arose for rich and powerful trial lawyers. They began filing billion-dollar lawsuits across the country against baby bottle makers and retailers who sold them.

That’s a very good article on the combine. Neil Munro of The National Journal also did a story on the campaign against BPA in November, “Toxic Suspicions Could Fuel Regulatory Overhaul,” noting how the non-BPA bottle manufacturer BornFree stood to make millions from the chemical’s banning. And who does BornFree’s public relations? Fenton Communications.

James Lileks reporting in The Bleat on the consequences of the anti-BPA  campaigns, litigation, legislation, hysteria:

Got up to get out, fetched 3 girls from the summer day-camp on the other side of town. I asked one of the counselors if my daughter could have a new water bottle with the camp logo, since she’d dropped hers and it had shattered. She said yes – in fact, they were all breaking, and had to be replaced. “We switched to a different kind of plastic because the parents worried that the other plastic gave you cancer,” she said. “But they all broke.”

Now why is that?

Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, writing at Forbes.com, “The Latest Toxin Activists Want to Ban”:

The “toxin du jour” these days is bisphenol A, otherwise known as BPA. Environmental activists claim BPA harms babies as it dissolves out of the sides of baby bottles and sippy cups, causing everything from cancer to learning disabilities and even obesity. Spurred by consumer groups, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal wants Coca-Cola, Del Monte and other companies investigated for trying to stop anti-BPA legislation.

In fact, BPA has been used safely for about 60 years to make plastic bottles hard and shatter-proof, for the coatings of metal food containers and even in cellphones and medical devices. Nonetheless, the California Senate recently passed a law to ban the sale of sippy cups and baby bottles that contain BPA, and Chicago recently banned such products from city shelves.

More from Canada’s Financial Post, “Junk Science Week: Case of chemophobia” from S. Robert Lichter and Trevor Butterworth of George Mason University’s Statistical Assessment Service. In the U.S. Senate, Sen. Chuck Schumer has sponsored S. 753, the BPA-Free Kids Act.

There’s a buck to be made, though. On TV these days, you may find yourself watching ads for the EcoCanteen, a stainless steel water bottle that uses fear of BPA as a major selling point. The company has been lambasted at consumer websites such as The Greenest Dollar for “shady customer service, high fees, and aggressive upselling.” Well, that fits the whole BPA scare/litigation model, doesn’t it?

P.S. Have to mention Lileks’ punchline, responding to the camp counselor: “Wanted to say ‘yes, we were having a white-lead gargling contest last night, and the bottles leaked everywhere.’”

Another good report on NRP’s Morning Edition today from Jon Hamilton on the chemical used in some consumer plastic products, bisphenol A (BPA), and regulatory practices and philosophy. From “Is ‘Better Safe Than Sorry’ Reason Enough For Law?“:

The precautionary principle dates back to at least the 1930s, says Jonathan Wiener, a professor of law, environmental policy and public policy at Duke University. He says there are at least three basic forms of the principle, though one scholar found 19 variations.

Weaker versions of the principle say it’s OK to take precautions against a threat to health or the environment even if it’s not clear that the threat has caused any harm. Stronger versions say it’s essential to take precautionary action.

Extreme Interpretations

And then there’s the variation that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) used last month when she introduced her bill to restrict BPA.

“If you do not know for certain the chemical is benign, it should not be used,” Feinstein said.

Even advocates for restricting BPA acknowledge that’s an impossible standard to meet. The NPR reporter Hamilton also includes an important fact some stories (like this 2008 NPR story) leave out, that the European Union “hasn’t acted against BPA even though it has a law requiring it to follow the precautionary principle.”

Today’s story follows another fairly reported piece on BPA on April 1 by Hamilton, “Public Concern, Not Science, Prompts Plastics Ban.” The only missing element from both pieces is an acknowledgement that there are major costs associated with eliminating a particular chemical or substance from the production process, costs ultimately borne by the consumer.

Walter Olson at Overlawyered also takes note of yesterday’s NPR report documenting scientific evidence showing phthalates represent no health threat, but were banned nevertheless. From his post, “NPR on CPSIA: “Public Concern, Not Science, Prompts Plastics Ban”:

Although most coverage of the CPSIA debacle (this site’s included) has focused on the lead rules, the phthalates ban is also extraordinarily burdensome, for a number of reasons: 1) as readers may recall, a successful lawsuit by the Natural Resources Defense Council and others forced the last-minute retroactive banning of already-existing playthings and child care items, costing business billions in inventory and other losses; 2) vast numbers of vintage dolls, board games and other existing playthings are noncompliant, which means they cannot legally be resold even at garage sales, let alone thrift or consignment shops, and are marked for landfills instead; 3) obligatory lab testing to prove the non-presence of phthalates in newly made items is even more expensive than testing to prove the non-presence of lead. The phthalate ban is also an important contributor to the burden of the law on the apparel industry (the ingredient has often been used in screen printing on t-shirts and similar items) and books (”book-plus” items with play value often have plastic components). AmendTheCPSIA.com has reprinted a letter from Robert Dawson of Good Times Inc., an amusement maker.

Which makes this item from the Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire blog so dejavuable. “Lawmakers Seek to Ban BPA in Food, Beverage Containers“:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Edward Markey introduced similar bills last month to ban the chemical, which has been linked to breast and prostate cancers and reproductive problems in animals, from all food and beverage containers, and Sen. Charles Schumer introduced a bill Tuesday that would ban it from food and beverage containers for infants and toddlers.

The Schumer bill follows a recent move by Long Island’s Suffolk County to ban BPA in young children’s products. His bill, called the BPA-free Kids Act, would enact a nationwide ban and stiff penalties for manufacturers, importers and stores that violate it. The ban, like the one in Suffolk County, would apply to products aimed at children three years old and younger. In a statement, Schumer noted that many major retailers already have removed children’s products containing BPA from their store shelves. Last April, Toys ‘R’ Us, for example, said that by year-end it would stop carrying baby-feeding products containing BPA…

Federal reports on BPA are contradictory. A draft report issued last year by the National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institutes of Health, concluded that BPA may be linked to a number of health and developmental problems, including breast cancer and early puberty. The Food and Drug Administration later said that BPA in small amounts doesn’t pose a health risk.

Yes. Seems awfully familiar.

From the Washington Post, “House Approves Early-Voting Bill, Ban on Chemical in Baby Bottles“:

Another bill would make Maryland the first state in the country to ban the use of bisphenol A in the production of baby bottles, sippy cups and other plastic items for infants. The nation’s six largest bottle manufacturers have announced they will cease use of the chemical because a series of studies have linked it to a wide range of health problems, including neurological damage, diabetes and breast cancer.

Sponsor James W. Hubbard (D-Prince George’s), who persuaded colleagues last year to ban lead-containing toys in Maryland, said he hopes a state law could push the federal government to crack down on the chemical.

That strategy has worked so well with the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act and phthalates, hasn’t it?

Scanning the papers and websites in Oregon, we see that energy development — or fierce opposition to energy development, as is too often the case — remains a major issue in the Northwest.

Daily Astorian, December 9, “LNG foe earns state role“:

Liquefied natural gas opponents got a boost Monday when Oregon’s Attorney General-elect John Kroger announced his appointment of Columbia Riverkeeper Executive Director Brent Foster to his executive team at the Oregon Department of Justice.

Foster will oversee environmental crime for Kroger and will serve as his primary adviser on environment, energy, and natural resource policy. Foster was one of three special counsels Kroger appointed Monday.

Foster is worshipped and reviled in Clatsop County for his anti-LNG activism.

We didn’t follow the Oregon AG race, so don’t know if the winning campaign slogan was, “Keep Cold with Kroger.”

The Olympian, December 24, editorial, “Upgrade to power grid wise investment“:

The wind farms are in rural, remote areas of Oregon and Washington, east of the Cascade Mountains, in the Columbia River Gorge and far from the high-growth populations centers of Puget Sound and the Willamette Valley. BPA doesn’t have the transmission capacity to deliver the green wind power to homes and businesses in the Interstate 5 corridor where 85 percent of the region’s electricity demand resides.

But Bonneville has mapped out a plan to build about 600 miles of high voltage transmission lines at a cost of about $1.5 billion. Several of the projects are engineered and ready for construction. Others require more environmental review.

Now is the time for the region’s members of Congress to make sure BPA transmission expansion projects are included in the president’s economic recovery-green energy stimulus package.

President-elect Obama has included upgrading the power grid in developing an infrastructure/stimulus plan, so The Olympian’s pitch has merit. Of course, a power grid to serve wind farms can also serve additional coal-fired power production, or even LNG-fired plants, so everybody wins.

Portland Business-Journal, December 26, “Organizations Overcome Tough Times“:

In the past two years, seven solar energy manufacturers have committed $1.5 billion in capital investments and 2,000 high-wage jobs in Oregon.

The biggest of those, Germany-based SolarWorld AG, opened its 480,000 square foot Hillsboro plant in October, the largest solar cell manufacturing plant in North America.

The wind energy industry, while not a major source of manufacturing jobs, has continued a surge of wind farms in the state. As of November, nearly 30 wind farms were either in operation or under development, with a capacity of 3,000 megawatts of electricity.

Good!

And more from the Business Journal:

Emerging technologies have also showed strong growth.

The state Department of Geology and Mineral Industries as of November issued 15 drilling permits for geothermal electricity projects, the first issued by the agency in 15 years.

New Jersey-based Ocean Power Technologies in 2008 received a $2 million federal grant to build the first of 10 electric-generating buoys it hopes to deploy along the coast at Reedsport in 2009. The buoys are expected to generate about 1.5 million megawatts of wave energy — enough to power 1,500 homes annually. [Assuming it's 1.5 megawatts, not 1.5 million.]

Great! Except, really, do we want 1,500 more homes along the Southern Oregon coast? And do the buoys emit whale-disturbing vibrations?

Seriously, the development of these alternative energy forms is great news. A comprehensive energy strategy should embrace all sorts of sources of production, especially as they become more efficient and competitive and, in some cases, produce baseload electricity.

Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee has a smart report on legislators who are busy looking through your cupboards for products that offend them. The two, in particular, are Assemblyman Mark Leno and Sen. Carole Migden, sponsoring bills against fire retardant chemicals and bisphenol-A (BPA), respectively.

The bills, Leno’s AB 706 and Migden’s SB 1713, are emblematic of the Legislature’s penchant for regulatory decrees on consumer products – based on what? Conclusive scientific evidence of looming harm, pressure from folks who dislike something for some reason, or merely a headline-grabbing crusade?

Some call them “nanny bills.” Whatever the name, they are proliferating, as Monday’s passage of a measure to ban “trans fats” from restaurant foods (but not, oddly enough, from foods prepared at home) attests. An Assembly committee analysis of Leno’s measure put the syndrome this way:

“Increasingly, the Legislature is faced with measures dealing with the management of individual chemicals and/or products of concern to public health and safety and the environment . . . This seems to be leading policy-makers away from a systematic analysis of threats to public health and safety and the environment.

That’s an unusually good legislative analysis. Wonder what the analyst had to say about the trans-fats ban.

Coincidently, one of the proposed litigation groups that met at the just-completed American Association for Justice conference — the national trial lawyers group — targets bisphenol-A. Coincidently.

BPA appears prominently in another, semi-related story by Mark Gunther at Fortune, a piece we recommend, “Wal-Mart: the new FDA.” With activists, the threats of lawsuits and politicians spooking the giant retailers, decisions about product safety are now being made outside the regulatory world, with little regard to, well, product safety.

The giant retailer, along with CVS (CVS, Fortune 500) and Toys ‘R Us, announced recently that it plans to stop selling baby bottles containing the chemical bisphenol-A.

The question is, why? Bisphenol-A has been widely used since the 1950s. The Food and Drug Administration, as well as Japanese and European regulators, have no problems with it. Canada is about to ban it from baby bottles, but officials term the move purely precautionary.

To be sure, other scientists worry because animal studies have linked small doses of BPA to cancer and other health problems. But scientific debate isn’t driving the baby bottle war; a hard-hitting push by activist groups, politicians and trial lawyers is.

So, there are alternative products, right?

If opponents drive BPA out of the food supply, consumers will pay. Some BPA-free plastic bottles sell for $10 each, more than twice the price of bottles with BPA. Baby bottles made of glass can break, potentially causing injury. Replacing BPA in the lining of cans would mean retooling all that packaging, and it’s not clear that there are safe alternatives.

Lots of news on the civil litigation, tort reform front today:

Or When They First Think of Law School: Reasonable enough piece in the business section of The New York Times on Sunday, To the Trenches: The Tort War Is Raging On.” The Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform draws attention for its valuable efforts, as does the NAM ally, the American Justice Partnership. AJP’s Stephen Hantler has words of wisdom: “If you were to ask a corporate lawyer, when does the litigation process start, the corporate lawyer would say, when the lawsuit is filed…The trial lawyer would say, not at all. It starts when judges are appointed or judges are elected, and when laws are made.”

Win, Place or Show: Concluding arguments in the Kentucky fen-phen trial are set for today in a Covington federal courtroom, the issue being whether three attorneys who won a class-action case ripped off their clients when they took $51 million out of the $200 million settlement. The Cincinnati Enquirer has a wrap-up story today, Fen-phen case nears climax,” with all its strange elements: The lawyers buying a race horse, the machinations of Cincinnati class-action guru Stan Chesley – granted immunity – and the pain suffered by the clients. The Enquirer published a special section: “Prescription for Scandal” featuring all the coverage so far. Meanwhile, Florida A&M Law School defends a contribution from the wife of one of the charged attorneys.

What if the Ounce of Prevention Costs $10 Billion? Smart op-ed column in Canada’s Financial Post newspaper from Michael Krauss of the George Mason University School of Law, “Science danger ahead: Baby bottles, BPA and the precautionary principle.” In practice, the precautionary principle holds that no additional new risks are acceptable. Krauss writes: “The precautionary principle, then, is less a modern Luddism than a fear of the unknown risk, and an irrational preference for the known risk, even if the latter is very likely greater than the former. It is the denial of what has made us the most modern and, yes, safest and healthiest society on the face of the Earth. It is fear and it is unreason. It is downright dangerous.  When do we get to apply the precautionary principle to the precautionary principle?”

More from the Financial Post: From Terrance Corcoran, editor of The Financial Post, “Canned science and baby bottles.” “The Globe and Mail’s environmental coverage, now under the scaremongering stewardship of Martin Mittelstaedt, recently unleashed another of the master’s panic-inducers. “The Hidden Chemicals in Cans,” said the headline over a two-page spread that purported to report “for the first time” that canned goods in Canada — from beer to soup — contained “high levels” of Bisphenol A, the “estrogen-mimicking chemical.” Never mind that the measured levels of Bisphenol A (BPA) were actually phenomenally low — the only thing high was the size of the headline used by the Globe to record the numbers. The 8.61 parts per billion of BPA in a can of chicken soup were made to look proportionately equivalent of two giant chunks of chicken in each can.”

What’s All This About Baby Bottles? One of many, many stories of the ilk: “Columbus, Ohio - Four Ohio parents have filed a federal lawsuit against makers of baby bottles, claiming the bottles were made with a harmful chemical that sparked congressional hearings and prompted Wal-Mart and other retailers to pledge to phase out the products.”

Judicial Activism Run Amock:  A column by Melanie Scarborough in The Examiner examines the lawsuit by a small activist group, the American Council of the Blind, that demanded U.S. paper money be made discernible to the blind. A judge agreed. “The larger and more representative National Federation of the Blind considers ACB’s lawsuit little more than a publicity stunt. ‘Because the management of paper currency is well within the capacity of the blind, changing the currency to gain a minor convenience is not justified,’ said Federation President Marc Maurer. Moreover, the changes to money that have been proposed are largely unworkable. Printing Braille on paper bills has been tested, Maurer said; it wears off very rapidly. Having currency of varying sizes would be helpful only if a blind person carried notes of every denomination to make comparisons among all of them.” Cost of the change? Not just the $225 million to print new money, but billions to retool all the country’s vending machines. One suit, one judge, billions of dollars.

There’s bound to be more ….

P.S. ScotusBlog covered the U.S. Supreme Court’s public session today. No Heller, no Exxon Valdez.