Bisphenolic A, Man!

LaVidaLocavore got to this before I did, but you've got to read this from the report on a meeting bisphenol A manufacturing groups. Emphasis mine:

... 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.” ...

Consider it a real life object lesson in corporate PR. Can we say it's safe? Can we get a sympathetic spokesperson to say that they don't care about the risks? Can we get sympathetic regulators to ignore the mounting scientific evidence of harm? Can we throw a few hundred thousand more dollars in the mix and protect our investment in this crappy thing that's making people sick?

It's a time-tested strategy. It often works.

Will it work on a chemical shown to promote cardiovascular disease and diabetes, which two diseases that have been blamed by industry entirely on the poor lifestyle choices of their customers? Will it work for a chemical that feminizes infant male monkeys, stifles thyroid in frogs, reduces the effectiveness of prostate cancer treatment and is more potentially damaging to young infants?

We'll find out.

(Photo credit: pfly on Flickr.)