Natural Solutions Foundation
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

The Dangers of Estrogen Mimicking Compounds in Certain Plastics

Bis Phenol A (BPA) is bad for you, especially if you have not been born yet. Moms who are exposed to BPA during their pregnancies (or before it) give birth to male babies whose sex organs and anatomy have been feminized. That is just one of the dangers of xeno-estrogens (which mimic the effect of estrogen on the body) like BPA. There is no known way to reverse these changes.

Breast and prostate cancer, of course, are other known hazards. Why is it permitted in our food chain both by the US and by Codex Alimentarius (the “World Food Code”). Well, as the Narrator says in Cabaret, “Money makes the world go ’round, the world go ’round, the world go ’round!”

Money certainly makes the FDA go ’round and the FDA makes Codex go ’round. But, when you read the notes of the meeting held recently by the industry interests which want to keep BPA going ’round because it brings them SO much money, prepared to be horrified at the way the “real world” works. Watch for their definition of the “Holy Grail” spokesperson on the wonderful benefits [sic!] of BPA and be prepared to change your buying habits to real, whole, uncontaminated foods – exclusively, and water in glass bottles – exclusively.

BPA has long been known to be both dangerous and ubiquitous in prepared foods. Leeching from the lining of cans and plastic bottles, the US Government has chosen not to set upper limits of any kind for it.

Treehugger.com points out:

“17% of the American diet comes out of cans, and many of those have an epoxy liner made with Bisphenol A, a chemical which can mimic human estrogen and which is linked to breast cancer and early puberty in women. While the leaching of BPA from Nalgene water bottles and other polycarbonate bottles is a concern, the danger from canned food may be greater. The Environmental Working Group tested canned food bought across America and found BPA in more than half of them, at levels they call “200 times the government’s traditional safe level of exposure for industrial chemicals.” There are no standards for BPA; it is allowed to be put in anything, and billions of pounds are produced each year.”

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/bpa-danger-from-cans.php

The Environmental Working Group found, in a study of canned food,

“Of all foods tested, chicken soup, infant formula, and ravioli had BPA levels of highest concern. Just one to three servings of foods with these concentrations could expose a woman or child to BPA at levels that caused serious adverse effects in animal tests.”

Their results are staggering: 33% of all infant food is seriously contaminated with BPA while 1/10 of all canned food is, too.

While the Chemical Industry, in the guise of the American Chemical Council, continues to opine, in the absence of any meaningful substantiation, “”Human exposure to BPA from can coatings is minimal and poses no known risk to human health.”, the facts are quite different. There are literally hundreds of peer reviewed studies which show the biological and reproductive hazards associated with BPA exposure at low levels.

BPA is an approximately $6 Billion per year business. Recognizing its bad behaviors as an additive or as a substance that the public is ingesting would be very bad for that business, indeed. So recently the main actors in the BPA scenario met together to figure out has to make this problem – the rejection of BPA by the public – go away.

Following, you find the purported notes of that meeting. I say “purported” because I have no certain knowledge that this meeting took place, that these notes were, in fact the output of that meeting or that this document represents a slice of reality. I believe, however, based on the internal consistency and content, that they were taken at that meeting and that the contents of this document bear careful examination. The contents should induce anger and extreme caution in you.

Anger because of the blatant assumption that you are so easily led and mislead and that your well-being is of no consequence in the dollar game (it is not of consequence to anyone in this meeting, apparently) and caution because if you are eating or drinking anything out of plastic or cans, you might want to stop doing so NOW.

I know that General Bert and I have.

The use of the phrase “prolong the life of BPA” in the notes suggests that these people know that the truth about BPA will eventually be recognized and that it will be forced off the market. Very much like the tobacco-death industry during recent decades, these people are willing to endanger public health to extend their profits a few more years. They expect that you will do nothing about their disinformation plans to fool you… but we know the power of pushback. Now that you know, what will you do?

Please remember to make your on-going tax deductible donation to http://drrimatruthreports.com/?page_id=189 to keep health freedom free and keep information coming to you which you need.

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org
(the website for the Valley of the Moon(TM) Eco Demonstration Project, Volcan Panama)
http://www.Organics4U.org
http://www.NaturalSolutionsMarketPlace.org
www.NaturalSolutionsMedia.tv
www.Youtube.com/naturalsolutions

PS: A quick note about baby food: when my son, now 34 years old, was a baby, I took the food that we ate at the table (all of it organic, free of added sugar or salt, artificial colors or flavors, additives and other contaminants, of course) and put it into a “Happy Baby Food Mill” which I carried with us wherever we went.

It was basically a fine grinder, easily cleaned, which put out a puree of whatever I put into it. Voila! Instant fresh baby food at any moment I wanted it. I knew EXACTLY what went into it, whether there were additives (I would have had to have put them there myself if there were any) and my baby was eating fresh, wholesome food exactly as I was. A quick rinse under a water faucet and the mill was ready to slip into a plastic bag until it was needed again on our excursion or until I got it home to a sink of hot soapy water. I see no reason why ANYONE needs commercial baby food, based on my happy experience with the Happy Baby Food Mill!

Did I mention? No BPA’s! REL

These alleged minutes follow an invitation from a major food trade association to its
members requesting their attendance at a communications strategy meeting on
Thursday, May 28, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Obtained by the Environmental Working Group

Meeting Minutes
North American Metal Packaging Alliance, Inc.
May 28, 2009 – 10:00 a.m. – 3:10 p.m. EDT

RE: BPA Joint Trade Association Meeting on Communications Strategy

Meeting Goal: Develop potential communication/media strategies around BPA

Discussion Topics: Consideration of available web-based communication
options, including targeted geographies, as well as mainstream media response

Attending Companies: Coca-Cola, Alcoa, Crown, North American Metal
Packaging Alliance, Inc., Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), American
Chemistry Council, Del Monte

Summary: Attendees discussed the need to be more proactive in
communications to media, legislators, and the general public to protect industries
that use BPA, prolong the life of BPA, put risks from chemicals in proper
prospective, and transcend the media and the blogosphere. Attendees believe a
balance of legislative and grassroots outreach (to young mothers ages 21-35 and
students) is imperative to the stability of their industry; however, the association
members continue to struggle to initiate research and develop a clear-cut plan to
defend their industry. The committee will spend approximately $500,000 to
develop a survey on consumer BPA perceptions and messaging and eventually
content and outreach materials. Overall, the committee seemed disorganized,
and its members frustrated. Lack of direction from the committee and these
associations could continue to allow other associations and environmental
groups to push BPA out.

Other Points: Attendees suggested using fear tactics (e.g. “Do you want to have
access to baby food anymore?”) as well as giving control back to consumers
(e.g. you have a choice between the more expensive product that is frozen or
fresh or foods packaged in cans) as ways to dissuade people from choosing
BPA-free packaging. Attendees noted, in the past, the different associations
have had a reactive strategy with the media, with very limited proactive outreach
in reaching out to journalists. The committee agrees they need to promote new,
relevant content to get the BPA perspective into the media mix. The committee
believes industry studies are tainted from the public perspective.

The committee doubts social media outlets, such as Facebook or Twitter, will
work for positive BPA outreach. The committee wants to focus on quality instead
of quantity in disseminating messages (e.g. a young kid or pregnant mother
providing a positive quote about BPA, a testimonial from an outside expert,
providing positive video, advice from third party experts, and relevant messaging
on the GMA website). Members noted traditional media outreach has become
too expensive (they have already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars) and
the media is starting to ignore their side. The committee doubts obtaining a
scientific spokesperson is attainable. Their “holy grail” spokesperson would be a
“pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about
the benefits of BPA.”

Eventually, the committee concluded before deciding on the tactics to spread
their messages, they need to develop the messages. The committees plan to
fund a joint survey and message testing—what new messages they need to
sell—before implementing a website and creating materials. Another task group
will be implemented to finalize how to develop messages and aggressively use
electronic media to deliver those messages.

Members noted the industry needs research on how perceptions of BPA are
translating into consumer behavior—Is it translating into most moms not buying
canned products or just a minority of moms? They hope to form messages
relevant to how people live their lives—What does not having BPA mean to your
daily lifestyle? Focusing on the impact of BPA bans on minorities (Hispanic and
African American) and poor is also important. The members want to put the
danger of BPA into perspective.

Legislatively, the committee is focusing on Connecticut and California.
Committee members are meeting with as many representatives on the Health
Committee as possible. The members are focusing on more legislative battles
and befriending people that are able to manipulate the legislative process. They
believe a grassroots and legislative approach is favorable because the legislators
worry about how the moms will react. If the Connecticut bill goes through, the
committee believes it will be a good opportunity to talk about the negative impact
that ban will have on businesses and employment—How will it affect the union
workers? The committee wants to put a proposal together for the right way to
deal with legislative issues in each state.

The committee discussed Prop 65 in California—requiring the Governor to
publish, at least annually, a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer
or reproductive toxicity. The committee will form a coalition to write a submission
about the benefits of using BPA by the deadline for submissions on June 30,
2009. Members will also build up their contact base in Sacramento. The
committee does not want to win at the legislative level and then not have anyone
to buy the product.

The committee questioned whether or not trade associations should challenge
what is being said about BPA. Other trade associations for plastics have begun
writing letters in response to “lies” being told about BPA. The committee
proposed to be involved in the dialog and comment electronically and directly
back to reporters. Attendees noted it does not matter what the next material is,
there will be issues with it, and the committee wants to work to make people feel
more comfortable with BPA and “BPA2” or whatever chemical comes next.

The committee suggested dividing the costs of the work and research equally by
the members. The members are guesstimating it will cost at least $200,000 for
the message testing and the survey and $500,000 for the entire project. The
committee is also looking for new members to help with costs and outreach.

— End of Purported Notes —