"Atkinson is saying that his opposition to THIS bill is because he's opposed to what MIGHT be in the NEXT bill.

How bizarre is that? That's what's wrong with the political process today. "

That is the political process. It's called setting precedent.

Good lord. This is a mom and apple pie bill. The bill was narrowed down to only ban BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups. I find it disheartening that our own friends(democrats)defeated this bill out of fear of what we may propose next. I don't get it. They have the vote! Don't they trust themselves?

As much as we think of Oregon as a green state it is more of a perception rather than a reality. Disappointing to say the least.

Ironic. There are a number of sad consequences to this vote. The opponents' unwillingness to take simple steps to protect children simply leaves any resulting carnage to the courts and trial lawyers.

Choosing industry over children? Truly amazing. Special shout out to the "D's" who joined the majority. You've outdone yourselves this time.

Not sure who I'm more disgusted with, the Republicans that are supposed to side with big business over kids' health, or the Democrats who went along for the ride.

Never mind, it's obvious. I was briefly impressed with the Dems for raising taxes on the rich, but I guess that was just a fluke. Reminds me of the saying about third parties--I'd be happy with a second one (that wasn't all about serving big business).

[Off-topic racist crap deleted. -editor.]

pathetic

Nothing like fighting to keep dangerous chemicals in baby bottles. Is there any integrity left on the Oregon Rescumlican Party?

You would think that by the time Verger, Schrader and Johnson were elected to the Oregon Senate, they would recognize the oldest tricks in the rhetorical toolbox. How pathetic!!

Slippery slope ; the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A lead to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z.

or

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications to a logical but absurd consequence.

Very disappointing.

Like you said before, it was an easy decision. Stops when we stop letting reps get off easy.

John Calhoun- you do realize that babies and unborn children can't read the Blue Oregon advertising, right?

Taylor - perhaps their parents can?

Joshua

I don't see an R after these names: Senators Joanne Verger (D-Coos Bay), Martha Schrader (D-Canby), and Betsy Johnson (D-Scappoose)

hmmm, i thought that the science here was ambiguous at best. While it may suggest a problem, it has yet to pinpoint it. but then that hasn't stopped other State mandated solutions.

This is classic Dem politics. "Let's find a group to help out today". As always, it's a broader issue and everybody could use some relief, not just the clique du jour. If the additive is borderline questionable for small children, what's the production and industrial use of it like for adults local to where it's produced? What about disposal? Classic Dem, let's not really upset business as usual, but lets enfranchise one tiny piece of the pie that, coincidentally, is one of the groups you pander to when pimping for votes.

Posted by: Taylor M | Feb 16, 2010 5:28:51 PM

John Calhoun- you do realize that babies and unborn children can't read the Blue Oregon advertising, right?

Are we ever going to learn if that's PPM or pay-per-click, and just what the money goes for? Since it's a "volunteer run blog" and I know what hosting and (non) management cost, there's a significant chunk left over. Is that why right wing trolls are encouraged? Using their page views to generate Dem soft money? How does t.a. manage to run a blog without trolls, drive by postings, link spam AND ads.? Must be a blog management genius!

Obviously this is a contentious issue because many groups across the state have turned it into an emotional argument by claiming it is ‘for the children’. Despite this, the facts are conclusive that the exposure to BPA is so low that it is not a concern.

According to data from Health Canada, a 22 lbs infant would have to drink 434 4 oz. bottles per day to reach the European Food Safety Authority's recently set "safe" intake level of BPA. This "safe" intake level already includes a 100-fold safety factor beyond the no effect level determined in studies on laboratory animals.

On June 2, 2009, the United Kingdom Food Standards Agency (FSA) said, “The view of the FSA on BPA has not changed. We do not believe that UK consumers are exposed to levels of BPA that would be considered a danger.”

On March 2009 Health Canada noted, “Health Canada’s Food Directorate has concluded that the current dietary exposure to BPA through food packaging uses is not expected to pose a health risk to the general population, including newborns and infants.”

A ban on BPA would have forced consumers to rely on less tested or inferior alternatives that could very well carry a much higher risk.

The full report is available here: http://cascadepolicy.org/pdf/FullreportBPA-012710a.pdf

A summary is available here: http://www.cascadepolicy.org/2010/01/27/the-nanny-state-attack-on-bpa-oregon-and-beyond/#more-3515

"http://cascadepolicy.org" 'nuff said

I think the Senate Democrats have been pathetic on environmental issues this session. There is way too much emphasis on deferring things until 2011 - as if everything will get done then - with the convenient scapegoat having been M 66 and 67 and not wanting to "ask too much" of business - which we've heard plenty in Salem this session. They said this for Plastig Bags, Navigability, now BPA. Wow, and who is in Power again?

Todd Wynn says it's too little exposure, your infant will barely notice! I believe that's the same BS that we were told about second-hand smoke, toxic waste and pollutants in rivers, pesticides on food and a whole bunch of other industry cover-ups.

Too bad it failed in the Senate....I was looking forward to hearing what stolen material Matt Wingard would use to justify his No vote.

Looks like the lege must have expected the Measures to fail. Ever since they passed, legislators have turned their backs on voters to better serve their corporate patrons. Our sworn representatives won't let that corporate cash trough, BETC, sunset as intended; won't kick the kicker, which sends millions of other dollars back to the corporations; and now won't even protect babies and toddlers from BPA.

Why would anybody vote for an incumbent in November?

Martha Shrader is a Democrat. Why does that sound wrong when I say it out loud?

Also, the WI state Assembly passed a very similar bill the same day 95-2 (!) read it and weep: http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/84527992.html

A favorite in the testimony was when Sen. Atkinson compared moms concerned about BPA (which the US FDA has advised parents to avoid) with moms who treat their kids for a cold before they even have one. You know, the over protective paranoid ones.

Maybe he's not aware that the FDA's January 2010 decision to rate BPA as being of "some concern" (3 of a possible 5) is the same level of concern it assigned to amphetamines in infants. Yes, amphetamines.

And his plea to treat all humans equally here - i.e., "don't just protect the kids, guys, we're all important" is a wee off base on the science. Last I checked infants and kids have developing bodies that are more sensitive to pretty much everything.

But at least the food bank won't have to go completely without canned food, as one industry lobbyist suggested in a committee hearing. And good thing we have BPA to "keep formula fresh" - or some other off-topic madness that the NW Grocer rep used to not answer the question on Think Out Loud.

The whole thing was a sordid industry v. public health soap opera. Predictable, but still sordid.

Todd, do you really think you can count on Cascade Policy Institute for an objective analysis of the hazards of BPA?

It's a typical example of a toxic chemical that has practical applications. The companies who make and use it put the burden of proof on those who may be injured to show that it is harmful enough to be restricted. It's the "show us the dead bodies" argument. It really ought to be the other way around, chemicals should be shown to be safe before they are introduced into commerce and our bodies.

Mike, Yes re chemicals should be proven safe before they hot the market, not after the bodies are counted. Which is precisely why the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (aka TSCA) needs to be reformed. But we're waiting....and waiting...on Congress to introduce the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act. Getting close, but close is still no bill. More here: http://www.ewg.org/kid-safe-chemicals-act-blog/kid-safe-chemicals-act/.

Oh, Kari, if only the Democrats were in control of the Oregon Senate, how different it would be!

Oh, wait. They are.

So why are Republicans the villains here? Because this is Blue Oregon, where the conclusions are written first, and the facts are collected later.

<h2>I think I found a solution to this whole problem. I just went to the store the other day and bought new bottles for my kid that were all BPA free. Just like that, picked them off the shelf and bought them. Problem solved.</h2>