I’ve been working to reduce children's exposures to toxic chemicals for almost ten years now. First, in a laboratory, I studied how mercury emissions from power plants were converted to the neurotoxin methyl mercury. Now, at the Center for Progressive Reform (CPR), I’ve been working to shape regulation of the plastics chemical bisphenol A (BPA). But when I got pregnant a year ago, the abstract babies and children I’d been working to protect were quickly personified in the form of one tiny, very tangible little girl.

Even before I brought my daughter home from the hospital, I found my home and work life overlapping. As it happened, I spent the bulk of my work time during my pregnancy working on a report on BPA, learning more every day about the risks it poses to my daughter before and after she was born. That knowledge didn’t drop out of my brain at night: I found myself tearing through my cupboards jettisoning canned foods and water bottles, and making sure I put food on a plate before heating it in the microwave. Now that my daughter’s joined us on the outside, I look at every piece of clear plastic with a wary eye and seek alternatives wherever I can.

BPA is in practically everything it seems, but infants and small children are exposed to it in greater quantities from bottles, formula cans, and toys. Scientists have linked exposures to even tiny amounts of BPA to a staggering list of potential health effects, including an increased risks of prostate and breast cancer, decreased male fertility, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, early puberty, and reproductive abnormalities.

One reason it’s still in use despite all those hazards is that the industry has mounted a campaign to discredit or confuse the science on BPA. This past week, CPR published the report I’d been working on during and immediately following my pregnancy. In Opening the Industry Playbook: Myths and Truths in the Debate about BPA, we dissect five particularly pernicious myths touted by industry to delay BPA regulation.

The myths follow in the footsteps of past industry efforts to stall regulation of everything from tobacco to seat belts. First, the plastics industry tries to undermine the science by underwriting favorable studies to make it look like scientists disagree. Then, they claim that regulations would bankrupt the industry and have awful unintended consequences. Finally, they try to concentrate regulatory action on the federal level, so that they can more effectively control the process. The five myths we debunk in the paper are:

1. The myth of a scientific consensus on safety: Industry advocates commonly assert that scientists concur that BPA is safe. In fact, scientists agree that BPA is a known endocrine disruptor and that it therefore poses serious risks to consumers, especially infants and children.
2. The "Good Laboratory Practices" myth: Industry activists argue that regulatory agencies should disregard studies that do not comply with FDA’s Good Laboratory Practices standard, including many studies that exhibit a link between low-dose BPA exposure and adverse health effects. In so doing, they misapply the GLP standard, which is focused primarily on record-keeping and maintenance requirements, and is therefore not the best measure of a particular study’s scientific validity. It is a mistake to ignore the pioneering work that meets scientific standards of quality, like robust peer review.
3. The exposure and metabolism myths: BPA manufacturers would have us believe that the risk of adverse effects from BPA exposure is insignificant because typical human exposures are low and the chemical is readily metabolized into non-endocrine-disrupting forms. However, solid scientific research shows that BPA’s ubiquity leads to such frequent doses that even healthy adults cannot metabolize all of the chemical in their bodies. Fetuses and infants, with their less developed metabolic systems, are at particular risk of adverse health effects.
4. The economic myths: BPA manufacturers maintain that the chemical is a key ingredient in safe food packaging, one that cannot be replaced with economical alternatives. In fact, numerous canned food companies have replaced BPA without significant cost increases, and BPA bans in Japan, China, and in various states in the U.S. have spurred innovation.
5. The myth of "patchwork" regulation: The BPA-manufacturing industry complains that lack of uniformity in state-level regulations increases the costs of producing, distributing, and marketing their products. Although a growing coterie of states has banned the sale of certain products with BPA, the truth is that non-regulation of BPA is the norm across the United States. The real purpose of propagating this myth is to move the regulatory debate to the federal level, where large manufacturers’ advocates often have a stronger voice than their public interest counterparts.

All my life, people have told me what a tough job parenting is. Believe me when I say I’m convinced. But I like to think my day job could make it a little easier. Regulating BPA would let me—and countless other moms—spend less time scrutinizing every food container we run across, and more time enjoying our daughters and sons, as well as the remarkable journey of parenthood.

New Mom Lena Pons is a Policy Analyst at the Center for Progressive Reform. She is the co-author of Opening the Industry Playbook: Myths and Truths in the Debate about BPA, together with CPR President Rena Steinzor, CPR Member Scholar Thomas McGarity, CPR Senior Policy Analyst Matthew Shudtz.