This ban is a political vote. It has nothing to do with science or health. It does not mean that BPA has been shown to be harmful.

If policymakers are compelled to abandon scientific standards due to political or media pressure, the checks and balances of the regulatory system will be in jeopardy.

Well-meaning laws sometimes backfire. It's especially true when they are passed in reaction to media frenzies driven by ideology, not science. That's what's happening in the US and Europe, where advocacy groups are raising new alarms about bisphenol A (aka BPA), a controversial plastic component used to prevent spoilage in myriad products, including containers, dental sealants, and epoxy linings.

AEI Visiting Fellow Jon Entine explains the confusing case of Bisphenol A, showing what can happen when science and popular opinion are in conflict.

The term "political science" used to mean public policy studied not just as opinion but based on empirical, documentable evidence. Today it's come to mean something darker--the subversion of science in the hands of ideologues committed to manipulating public policy to their end. This new, and disheartening use of the...

At this AEI conference, experts addressed the potential regulation of BPA, a chemical used in plastic and other common products.

Given the measured way in which the EPA has reversed many anti-science biases of the Bush administration, it's disturbing to read the broadside against chemicals in "Legally Poisoned," by UC Riverside professor Carl Cranor.

When or if dedicated anti-BPA campaigners yield to the emerging science remains to be seen. Let's hope the OEHHA has the wisdom and courage to base its decision on science rather than on a narrow interpretation of Proposition 65.