It's rare that California doesn't set the bar for dealing with a health threat, but that's exactly what's happened. A California board of seven physicians and Ph.D.s voted unanimously last week not to include BPA as a developmental or reproductive toxin, saying there was not enough scientific evidence of the chemical's potential dangers.

Startling and disturbing, in light of the mounting evidence that BPA (bisphenol A, a chemical used in some plastic bottles and food containers) can mimic estrogen and may be linked to cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, reproductive abnormalities, and other health problems in children and adults.

Several jurisdictions have banned BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups, including Suffolk County, New York; the city of Chicago; and the state of Minnesota. Connecticut also recently banned BPA in reusable food and beverage containers, as well as infant formula and baby food cans and jars. In 2008, the Canadian government banned its use in baby bottles. And the California legislature itself is considering a bill that would ban BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups, infant formula containers, and baby food jars designed for children three and younger.

Although the Food and Drug Administration has reiterated its stance that BPA is safe for humans, the agency has since come under intense criticism from the scientific community, including its own Science Advisory Board. And the new FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg recently told a House panel that the agency will complete a full review of BPA by the end of the summer.

Almost a decade ago, Consumers Union was one of the first to test BPA in baby bottles, and to warn consumers about its potential dangers. Today, an array of groups, including consumer, health, environmental, medical, and scientific, have urged FDA to remove BPA from food and beverage containers, and at the very least, to protect the most vulnerable consumers, young children and pregnant women.

For more information on BPA, visit Consumer Reports' Greener Choices Web site.