Last week I testified before a panel of doctors in favor of identifying the chemical bisphenol A as a neurological and reproductive toxin under California's Proposition 65.

BPAs, found in many plastics like baby bottles and sippy cups, have been linked by various studies to everything from cancer to reproductive problems. If the panel of eight doctors that comprised the state's "science advisory board's developmental and reproductive toxicant identification committee" had voted to identify BPA under Proposition 65, the governor would have been required to publish the information.

However, the committee of doctors felt that the studies were not compelling enough to warrant a listing. You could say I was puzzled to learn that the panel's chair, Dorothy Burk, admitted if she had a baby she would purchase glass baby bottles to avoid BPAs. From the Los Angeles Times:

"Following the panel's decision, the Natural Resources Defense Council presented a petition demanding that BPA be listed because a study by the National Toxicology Program -- a state-recognized authoritative body -- had found "some concern" about the chemical's impact on the brains, behaviors, and prostate glands of fetuses, infants and children.

"Meanwhile, some retailers have pulled products containing the chemical and many consumers have stopped buying plastic baby bottles.

"The state Senate voted in June to ban BPA in food and drink containers for children under the age of 3.

"The Assembly is expected to vote on the ban later this summer.

"Although the panel may not have found the scientific evidence strong enough to warn the public, the panel's chairwoman said she abides by the 'precautionary principle.'

"'I think if I had a baby I probably would try to use glass,' Burk said."

Too bad Burk denied this information to everyone else.