For the last several years virtually every publication of a major new scientific finding about the health risks of bisphenol A and phthalates has been met with a withering rejoinder from an organization based at George Mason University called STATS. STATS has never published an article that finds scientific findings like these credible. It always has attacked, both the science and the scientists.

This puzzling uniformity -- surely all research funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (and comparable agencies in other countries) can't be wrong-- has left scientists working on both compounds puzzled. What is STATS' agenda?

Here's what STATS says on its website:

The consistent bias of its analyses created suspicions that STATS funding might come, at least in part, from places within or tied to the chemical industry, but until now efforts to explore STATS funding have only reported that STATS has received significant funding from conservative (often libertarian) foundations that provide support to many institutions working to oppose government regulation. STATS own website currently (23 August 2009) has no information about funding sources.

STATS chief author writing about bisphenol A has been Trevor Butterworth. According to STATS website, Butterworth is trained in philosophy and has an MS in journalism, but no scientific training. Most recently, he published a lengthy analysis of "Science Suppressed: How American Became Obsessed With Bisphenol A." In doing research for this article, he identified himself to at least one scientist, Dr. Fred vom Saal (University of Missouri) in an email "questions from journalist."

The report received some attention, including a citation by reporter Gina Kolata in a blog entry for the New York Times. She introduces it as follows: "The claims about the dangers of the chemical bisphenol-A, or BPA , get a skeptical look in a report by a nonpartisan, nonprofit group, STATS."

Latest news about bisphenol A