Some possible ways the chemical industry can respond to broader policy recommendations

Although the memo from this meeting is aimed at BPA, it shows possible ways the chemical industry can respond to broader policy recommendations: intimidation tactics, targeting “minorities (Hispanic and African American) and the poor cynicism and divisiveness of”, exaggerating the cost of supervision, and the “benefits” or “necessity” of continued use and exposure to unsafe chemicals, ignoring or ignoring reasonable, science-based concerns about the risks posed by specific chemicals. The memo itself says it all. I don’t want to emphasize a specific paragraph because its overall cumulative impact is greater, but here are a few key points that make me shine:


  1. The memo stated: “Participants suggested using a fear strategy (e.g. ‘Do you still want baby food?’).”


Chemical industry and their allies like to say that environmental and public health organizations exaggerate people’s concerns to scare the public (usually with this statement, these non-profit organizations become rich by scaring people). Therefore, it is ironic that these chemical industry organizations are discussing the use of “fear tactics… to discourage people from choosing non-bpa packaging.” An agreement was reached not to use this strategy.


  1. The memorandum stated that members “have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on traditional media promotion” (perhaps to convince people that BPA is safe and should not be regulated), and “estimates” that they need to “provide the entire project” “It costs another half a million dollars.


Presumably, these costs will be passed on to consumers through higher prices. I estimate that most people would rather spend a few cents more on a safer product that does not contain (or filter) one or more chemicals that may cause cancer, infertility or Developmental defects in 30 years and even the next generation, rather than media campaigns, aim to convince the public of the “benefits” of exposure to unsafe chemicals.


  1. According to the memo: “The committee doubts whether a scientific spokesperson can be obtained” [therefore] “Their’Holy Grail’ spokesperson should be a pregnant young mother who is willing to promote the benefits of BPA nationwide.”


Considering that almost every industry notorious for poisoning the public, including the tobacco industry, can usually find at least one scientist who is willing to stand up and defend this deadly product. It is worth noting that the BPA industry doubts they can find such a product. spokesman. Maybe they can hire someone to pretend to be a credible scientist?


Reinsurance is the “Holy Grail” of pregnant mothers who are willing to travel and exercise represents the benefits of BPA. It is not clear if they will look for the body of young mothers specifically for pregnancy, breast milk, and current fetal cord blood containing BPA to talk about its benefits. However, this may be easier than finding a pregnant woman with no evidence of exposure.


  1. The memorandum stated that, at least for the purpose of this meeting, these evidences of participation show that BPA is not safe, and that it is not interested or looking for a safer option. It is only when convincing legislators and the public that risk is a valuable trade-off, and the most important thing is , BPA should not be avoided at all costs.


For example, see the description of the California Proposal 65 discussion, “This proposal requires the governor to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity in the state.” The memorandum stated that those attending the meeting believed that BPA would be included. Proposal 65, and did not discuss or debate the fact that BPA may be classified as a known carcinogen or reproductive toxin. Instead, the participants discussed forming a coalition to submit their opinions on the “benefits of BPA” to the state government.