Science or Panic Behind BPA Decision?

(Don't forget, my daily editorial comment airs weekday mornings at 6:20 with Bruce Kenyon and the Morning News, and again at 12:20pm with Wayne Nelson and Today So Far)
Thursday's editorial comment:

The federal government has added Bisphenol A, or BPA, to Canada's list of toxic substances.

BPA is a chemical used in the production of some plastic containers - it's also used to prevent corrosion on the inside liner of cans of food.

The announcement states that, quote, "Health Canada considers that sufficient evidence relating to human health has been presented to justify the conclusion that BPA is harmful to human life"

If that's the case, then the government is to be applauded for moving so decisively.

However, if that's not the case, then it would certainly put this decision in a very different light and call into question the decision-making process itself.

What's interesting is that Ottawa;s announcement comes just days after the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) declared BPA to be safe.

The EFSA ruled that Denmark's tough restrictions on BPA were not justified based on the scientific evidence.

They declared that, “Following a detailed and comprehensive review of recent scientific literature and studies on the toxicity of BPA at low doses, scientists on the EFSA panel conclude they could not identify any new evidence which would lead them to revise the current Tolerable Daily Intake.”
That panel, which consisted of  21 scientific experts, poured through the toxicological data from 2007 to 2010 in reaching their conclusion.
They find that many of the claims of BPA's harm involve tests on rodents. However, new studies on BPA in primates show that the chemical is eliminated much faster in humans than in rodents.
That also means the rodent models may be significantly overstating the risk of BPA exposure.
The panel concluded that no new study exists that would justify revising the EFSA approach to BPA or taking a tougher stance in regulating or banning the chemical.
It all suggests that Ottawa's conclusion is based on little more than a strict application of the precautionary principle.
Better safe than sorry might sit well with some, but after we get rid of BPA, what's to say its replacement will be any better?