Bisphenol A (BPA) found not harmful, yet again — so why did so many reporters and NGOs botch coverage, yet again?

Jon Entine recently published an absolutely terrific review of the ongoing fight between evidence-based science and the anti-science fear mongering against BPA. Jon opens with this:

One of the most disturbing trends in science reporting is what The New York Times’ Andrew Revkin calls “single-study syndrome”— the increasing tendency of reporters and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to trumpet research that supports a pre-determined perspective, no matter how tenuous—or dubious—a study might be.

and closes with this:

Why, after such a massive accumulation of evidence do activist NGOs, many reporters and even some scientists continue to reject the emerging, evidence-based scientific consensus? “At this point,” one prominent government scientist told me, “with all the recent studies in hand, calling BPA harmful and dangerous, that’s just mass hysteria.” Clinicians call this apophenia—a neurological condition in which people insist they see meaningful patterns or connections in contradictory or random data.“There are people who believe in the low dose effect of BPA and will always believe its disruptive effect, regardless of the evidence,” Dr. Gray told me. The ‘BPA-is-harmful’ crowd appears impervious to peer reviewed studies,” he added. “That’s a religious position. But as scientists and regulators, we have to go where the data takes us.”

You will be rewarded by reading Jon’s entire essay. Now. I promise you will better understand the source of all the alarming headlines you see about the dangers of “endocrine disruptors” and BPA.