Governor Gregoire today signed a ban on bisphenol A (BPA),a compound used in plastics such as beverage containers. Both the Washington Conservation Voters and the Washington Toxics Coalition praised the signing, arguing that BPA hurts children.

The Toxics Coalition even tweeted that politicians at the signing were "kissing babies (no joke)." Indeed that style of politics has typified the campaign against BPA, and in today's press release, one advocate said "Chemicals like BPA have no place in consumer products, especially those used by children..."

So, what now?

Advocates of the ban claimed all manner of impacts to children from BPA, as they have in previous campaigns. A Washington Toxics Coalition fact sheet claims that "Laboratory studies have linked BPA to cancer, miscarriage, obesity, reproductive problems, and hyperactivity." These impacts are seen, they claim, "at extremely low exposure levels."

This provides an opportunity to test the accuracy of those claims. Beginning next July, BPA is banned in beverage containers for children under age three. Over the next decade we should theoretically see a reduction exposure levels and, therefore, miscarriage, obesity, reproductive problems and hyperactivity. But that hasn't always been the way it has worked out.

After claims that autism was associated with a vaccine preservative called thimerosal, California banned it. A study found that even after it was banned, autism rates continued to climb. The AP noted "Researchers from the state Department of Public Health found the autism rate in children rose continuously during the 12-year study period from 1995 to 2007. The preservative thimerosal [a form of mercury] has not been used in childhood vaccines since 2001, but it is used in some flu shots."

If the Washington ToxicsCoalition and the Washington Conservation Voters care about helping children, and not just appearing to help children, they will measure the impact of these bills as time goes on and be honest about the results. Doing so is the best way to ensure that we are truly doing what is best for children. If BPA is harmful, the data will show it. If it is not, then they should support restoring itrather than risking impact from whatever compound replaces it. It may be embarrassing to admit they were wrong, but if their campaign is truly for the health of children, that is a small price to pay. We'll see what they do.