I think it is worth noting that beside an article which reassures consumers about the safety of BPA, four out of five Ads by Google promote BPA-free products.

Who funded the study? That's right - the plastics industry. 90% of the studies not funded by the plastics industry show harmful effects from BPA exposure at low levels.

Toxicity is determined by an applause meter.

This Website, which posted the article, “Low Dose of Bisphenol A Causes No Harmful Effects on Children, Adults,” calls itself “Research News.” This conveys the hope of independent and unbiased reporting, yet appearing on the same page of the article about the safety of BPA are links to several BPA-free baby bottle sites.

If the editor were asked about apparent conflict of interest, he or she could justifiably point out that the choice of ads is not under their control. That is true. “Ads by Google” placed the ads according to an algorithm, not specific consideration by a human. That way, nobody is to blame.

This brings up a question of ethics in journalism. Since editors are let off the hook, is there a temptation for “Research News” to push information that is ad-worthy rather than news-worthy? I believe there is.

There is also an ad titled “Bad bisphenol-A science,” which markets a book exactly diametrical to the article’s points. “Our Stolen Future” describes BPA as far worse than we have been told.

Consider this: Ads by Google lures biased journalism on one hand, while natural selection counters it with some more biased journalism. Why worry about truth if everyone makes money selling stuff? DK Pruitt

cc: spamgroup