P.I.S.S.D. — Personal Injury, Social Security Disability. Dallas Texas Lawyers

The Washington Post has an article today that illustrates the fallacy in the current trend of the Bush administration and the U.S. Supreme Court to push the doctrine of "preemption." This is the legal theory that basically states if a federal agency approves a product, then consumers are forbidden to file any claims for damages caused by that product. The argument against premption is that the government is starving the federal agencies by reducing their budgets, thereby reducing their abilities to adequately test products. The story is about safety concerns with the chemical compound bisphenol A (BPA). Here are excerpts.

Despite
more than 100 published studies by government scientists and university
laboratories that have raised health concerns about a chemical compound
that is central to the multibillion-dollar plastics industry, the Food and Drug Administration has deemed it safe largely because of two studies, both funded by an industry trade group.

The
agency says it has relied on research backed by the American Plastics
Council because it had input on its design, monitored its progress and
reviewed the raw data.

The compound, bisphenol A (BPA), has been
linked to breast and prostate cancer, behavioral disorders and
reproductive health problems in laboratory animals.

As evidence
mounts about the risks of using BPA in baby bottles and other products,
some experts and industry critics contend that chemical manufacturers
have exerted influence over federal regulators to keep a possibly
unsafe product on the market.

Congressional Democrats have begun investigating any industry influence in regulating BPA.

"Tobacco figured this out, and essentially it’s the same model," said David Michaels,
who was a federal regulator in the Clinton administration. "If you
fight the science, you’re able to postpone regulation and victim
compensation, as well. As in this case, eventually the science becomes
overwhelming. But if you can get five or 10 years of avoiding pollution
control or production of chemicals, you’ve greatly increased your
product.

Scientists first flagged possible health risks of BPA
more than a decade ago. From 1997 to 2005, 116 studies of the compound
were published, many of them focused on its effects in low doses. Of
those funded by government, 90 percent showed a health effect linked to
BPA. None of the industry-funded studies found an effect; all of them
said BPA is safe.