SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
December, 07 2011, 12:12pm EDT
Contact:
Suzanne Struglinski, NRDC, 202-289-2387, sstruglinski@nrdc.org
NRDC, FDA Reach Settlement in BPA Lawsuit
Agency Set to Make Decision on BPA Ban from Food Packaging by March 31
WASHINGTON
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has committed to decide by March 31, 2012 whether a chemical that causes brain damage in developing babies, infants and young children should be banned from use in packaging for food and drinks.
After a three-year delay, the agency agreed to address the use of the chemical - bisphenol A, or BPA - as part of a settlement reached today with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"Every day, millions of American consumers are exposed to this dangerous chemical, commonly used in packaging for canned foods, beverages and even baby formula," said Dr. Sarah Janssen, a senior scientist in the Environment and Public Health program at NRDC. "The FDA has an obligation to protect us from toxic food additives. As thousands of studies have already shown, BPA is a dangerous chemical that has no place in the food chain. Its use in food and beverage containers needs to be banned."
BPA can be found in the linings of beer or soda cans, vegetable or soup cans and liquid infant formula containers as well as consumer products made from polycarbonate plastics, including reusable water bottles. Consumer demand has already driven baby bottles and sippy cups containing the hormone-disrupting chemical from store shelves, but the exposure from food packaging remains.
"This is a major milestone in this legal battle, and we hope FDA moves to eliminate this dangerous chemical from the food supply," said Aaron Colangelo, an NRDC attorney. "It's disappointing we were forced to go to court to get the agency to do its job, but we're happy to see this move forward."
Background:
In 2008, NRDC filed a petition with FDA requesting a ban on BPA in food packaging, food containers and any material likely to come in contact with food. When FDA did not respond, as required by law, NRDC sued in 2010 asking the court to require the agency to respond. Today's settlement out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will require FDA to respond to NRDC's petition by March 31, 2012.
In 2010, FDA acknowledged it had "some concerns" about the chemical's effects on the brain, behavior and prostate glands in fetuses, infants and young children. The agency has supported some steps to reduce BPA exposure but has not banned the chemical's use.
To read more about today's settlement, see Dr. Janssen's blog post here: https://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sjanssen/nrdc_lawsuit_finally_prompts_f.html
NRDC works to safeguard the earth--its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. We combine the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild.
(212) 727-2700LATEST NEWS
US-Israeli War on Iran Sparks 'Largest Supply Disruption in History of Global Oil Market': IEA
"The oil market challenges we are facing are unprecedented in scale," said the executive director of the International Energy Agency.
Mar 12, 2026
The International Energy Agency said Thursday that the US-Israeli war on Iran and its reverberating impacts across the region have sparked "the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market," with flows of crude and other fossil fuel products through the Strait of Hormuz plummeting and Gulf nations slashing production as they run out of storage space.
The agency noted in its monthly report on the state of the global oil market that "oil prices have gyrated wildly since the United States and Israel launched joint airstrikes on Iran on 28 February," pointing to "disruptions to Middle Eastern supplies due to attacks on the region’s oil infrastructure and the cessation of tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz," which have "sent Brent futures soaring, trading within a whisker of $120/bbl."
The IEA's report came a day after the agency's 32 member nations—including the US—agreed unanimously to release a total of 400 million barrels of oil from their emergency reserves to "address disruptions in oil markets stemming from the war in the Middle East."
"The oil market challenges we are facing are unprecedented in scale, therefore I am very glad that IEA member countries have responded with an emergency collective action of unprecedented size,” said the agency's executive director, Fatih Birol.
The IEA assessment on Thursday came as oil prices surged again as Mojtaba Khamenei, Iran's new supreme leader, vowed to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed. An estimated 20% of the world's oil passes through the route each year.
Earlier on Thursday, Iraq—which has among the largest confirmed reserves of crude oil in the world—suspended all of its oil terminal operations after two vessels were attacked off the nation's coast. NPR reported that Iran "took responsibility for attacking one of the tankers, which it said was owned by the US."
The US and Israel have also bombed Iran's oil infrastructure, choking Tehran with black smoke and spraying toxic rain that prompted warnings from the World Health Organization (WHO).
"The black rain and the acidic rain coming with it is indeed a danger for the population, respiratory mainly," WHO spokesperson Christian Lindmeier told reporters in Geneva earlier this week.
Heba Morayef, Amnesty International's regional director for the Middle East and North Africa, said Wednesay that "the potential for vast, predictable, and devastating civilian harm arising from strikes targeting energy infrastructure, including uncontrolled deadly fires, major disruptions to essential services, environmental damage, and severe long-term health risks for millions, means there is a substantial risk such attacks would violate international humanitarian law and in some cases could amount to war crimes."
“Regardless of whether a military objective is cited to justify targeting energy infrastructure, under international humanitarian law all parties have a clear obligation to take all feasible precautions to reduce civilian harm and refrain from attacks that cause disproportionate death or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects," said Morayef. "This includes any foreseeable knock-on, indirect adverse effects on civilians’ life and health, such as exposure to toxic chemicals.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
One-Third of Americans Skipped Meals or Cut Back on Spending to Afford Healthcare in 2025
“No one is safe from making these trade-offs,” said a researcher at Gallup, which found even insured Americans in higher income brackets have avoided daily expenses to pay medical bills.
Mar 12, 2026
As the Trump administration spends an estimated $1 billion per day in taxpayer money bombing targets across Iran that have reportedly included an elementary school and healthcare facilities, Gallup released a survey Thursday that found one-third of Americans reported making financial trade-offs in order to pay for medical expenses last year.
The West Health-Gallup Center on Healthcare in America polled nearly 20,000 US adults between June and August 2025 and found that roughly one-third of them—equivalent to about 82 million people in the richest country in the world—were forced cut back on at least one expense in order to afford healthcare.
Eleven percent of respondents—equivalent to 28 million Americans—skipped a meal or intentionally drove less in order to pay a medical bill. Fifteen percent, the equivalent of nearly 40 million people, said they prolonged a current prescription or borrowed money, and 9% cut back on utilities.
Those numbers were strikingly similar among people who have health insurance, with 14% of insured people prolonging prescriptions to avoid paying for a new one and 9% skipping meals. Among insured Americans, 29% made at least one trade-off to afford healthcare.
The crisis is also not exclusively affecting low-income people. A quarter of people in households earning $90,000 to $120,000 per year skipped meals or other expenses to pay medical bills, and 11% of people in households earning $240,000 or more did the same.
“No one is safe from making these trade-offs,” Ellyn Maese, a senior researcher at Gallup and research director for the West Health-Gallup Center, told The New York Times.
Sixty-two percent of people without healthcare coverage were forced to make trade-offs, and 55% of people with household incomes lower than $24,000 per year as well as 47% of people earning $24,000 to $48,000 avoided expenses.
Gallup also released the results of a separate poll taken between October and December 2025, which showed how Americans are delaying major life decisions as well as altering their daily lives to afford healthcare under the for-profit insurance system.
As the Trump administration's policies slashed healthcare for 15 million Americans and raised healthcare premiums for tens of millions of people—and as the White House demanded that families have more children—6% of respondents said they had postponed having or adopting a child due to healthcare costs, equivalent to about 16 million Americans.
Nearly 30% said healthcare costs led them to avoid taking a vacation, 18% said they delayed finding a different job, 15% said they postponed pursuing education or job training, and 14% said they postponed buying a home.
The polls are “telling a consistent story here,” Maese said.
The survey results were released weeks after the Trump administration proposed new regulations for healthcare plans purchased through the Affordable Care Act marketplace that would charge deductibles as high as $15,000 for individuals and $31,000 for families to offset lower monthly premiums—underscoring how the healthcare law passed 16 years ago has left American households vulnerable to rising costs under the for-profit health insurance system.
A survey taken last November by Data for Progress found that 65% of voters support expanding the Medicare system to everyone in the US, a proposal that would save an estimated $650 billion annually.
But as Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)—who has sponsored Medicare for All legislation in the House—noted on Wednesday, Republicans and establishment Democrats continue to claim the proposal is unaffordable.
"When we ask for Medicare for All it’s 'too expensive,' and we 'don’t have the money,'" said Jayapal. "When the president drags us into his own personal war, no expense is spared. Our priorities are backwards."
Keep ReadingShow Less
With No Mention of US-Israeli Aggression, UN Security Council Condemns Iranian Retaliation
"The very purpose of this biased and politically motivated text, which was pushed by the Israeli regime and the United States, is clear: to reverse the roles of victim and aggressor," said Iran's ambassador to the UN.
Mar 12, 2026
The United Nations Security Council on Wednesday adopted a resolution condemning Iran's retaliatory attacks on Gulf nations without denouncing—or even mentioning—the illegal US and Israeli bombing campaign that started the war, which has hurled the region into conflict and destabilized the global economy.
The resolution, sponsored by council member and US ally Bahrain, "condemns in the strongest terms the egregious attacks by the Islamic Republic of Iran against the territories of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan," nations that host US military bases. The text calls Iranian strikes "a breach of international law and a serious threat to international peace and security," but contains no mention of the US or Israel, nations that have been accused of grave war crimes.
The council adopted Bahrain's measure by a vote of 13-0, with two abstentions—China and Russia. Both nations have veto power but declined to use it. Neither Iran nor Israel is currently a member of the Security Council.
The UN body also voted on a competing resolution, sponsored by Russia, that would have implored "all parties"—without naming any of them—to stop their military operations and avoid escalating the conflict. The resolution did not receive the nine votes necessary for adoption, with the US and Latvia voting against it and Bahrain, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, France, Greece, Liberia, Panama, and the United Kingdom abstaining.
Amir Saeid Iravani, Iran's ambassador to the UN, said the body's adoption of Bahrain's resolution marks "a serious setback to the council’s credibility and leaves a lasting stain on its record."
"Today’s action represents a blatant misuse of the Security Council’s mandate in pursuit of the political agendas of certain members," said Iravani. "The very state responsible for this brutal war of aggression against my country—the regime of the United States—sits on the other side of this chamber as president of the council, abusing its position while obstructing every effort to bring an end to this barbaric war against the Iranian people and preventing the Council from fulfilling its Charter-based responsibilities."
"This resolution is a manifest injustice against my country, the main victim of a clear act of aggression. It distorts the realities on the ground and deliberately ignores the root causes of the current crisis," he continued. "The very purpose of this biased and politically motivated text, which was pushed by the Israeli regime and the United States, is clear: to reverse the roles of victim and aggressor. It rewards the regimes of the United States and Israel, which have violated the UN Charter and committed acts of aggression. In doing so, it establishes impunity and sends a wrong message to the international community—emboldening the aggressors to commit further crimes."
"The UN and International Criminal Court were created for moments like this, when the most powerful decide the rules do not apply to them."
Ahead of the vote on Bahrain's resolution, which accuses Iran of "deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian objects," Iravani said US-Israeli bombing has killed more than 1,300 civilians in Iran and destroyed nearly 10,000 civilian structures across the country, including around 8,000 homes and dozens of schools and healthcare facilities.
Earlier on Wednesday, the New York Times reported that the Pentagon has reached the preliminary conclusion that US forces were responsible for the February 28 bombing of an Iranian elementary school, an attack that killed around 175 people—mostly young children.
DAWN, a nonprofit that supports human rights and democracy in the Middle East, said Wednesday that "mounting evidence" shows US and Israeli forces "have committed multiple war crimes" in Iran and Lebanon—which is facing a rapidly worsening humanitarian disaster due to Israeli attacks.
"In mere days, US and Israel forces have launched a war of choice, killed hundreds of civilians, displaced hundreds of thousands, bombed scores of schools, health facilities, and fuel depots, and dropped white phosphorus on civilian communities," Omar Shakir, DAWN's executive director, said in a statement. "The international community's failure to act when the most fundamental norms of international law are being challenged risks plunging the world further into a lawless era in which civilians across the globe are at risk."
"The UN and International Criminal Court were created for moments like this, when the most powerful decide the rules do not apply to them," said Shakir. "Governments unwilling to invoke international law when their allies commit crimes have no credibility when they invoke it against rivals."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular