Broward Brouhaha When HS Girl Volleyball Player Turns Out to Be...SURPRISE...a Guy

Another Mystery 'Monolith' Appears Near Vegas

The Democratic-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee's chairman has sounded the alarm about the so-called threats looming over the 2024 presidential election: artificial intelligence and disinformation. On Tuesday, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner (D-VA) claimed that these threats—which he suggested were imminent—would transform the election into “Wild, Wild West.”  Warner made these comments during an event with The Christian Science Monitor, where he addressed Murthy v. Missouri, a pending Supreme Court case set to determine if the federal government violated the First Amendment by coercing Big Tech platforms to censor Americans. Warner’s alarm comes after his failed attempts to stoke fears about foreign interference in the 2024 election. “We may be less prepared 155 days out in 2024 than we were under President Trump (in 2020),” he told the Associated Press earlier this month. Conveniently, an unnamed official from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) has briefed political candidates and government groups about what the left deemed to be increasing risks facing the presidential election, according to The Associated Press. Warner told the Monitor that ODNI had briefed his committee with several “good sessions in SCIFs [secure rooms] and with our hearings.” Recalling the meetings, Warner claimed, “I’m feeling better.” Despite the lack of concrete evidence for the alleged threats of AI and disinformation, the Virginia senator asserted he would continue to raise the alarm about potential challenges.  “This is something I’m going to try to elevate in the debate: how we can potentially be more proactive on some of these entities and sites,” Warner added. In May, Warner told an audience at the  RSA Conference for Information Security that the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI—two agencies embroiled in the Murthy case—had resumed their ongoing Big Tech collusion about censoring online content. “There seemed to be a lot of sympathy that the government ought to have at least voluntary communications with [the companies],” he claimed at the time, according to tech news outlet NextGov/FCW. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using MRC Free Speech America’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

For the Tuesday installment of The Daily Show on Comedy Central, Marlon Wayans broke out his Quan character as he interviewed former Fulton County special prosecutor Nathan Wade to ask if the affair with D.A. Fani Willis was worth ending democracy. Wayans began by asking, “What was your first thought when you had the affair with Fani become public between you and here?” Wade did not like the word, “I don't label it an affair. D.A. Willis is a respectable mother, a brilliant legal mind. We spent countless hours preparing this case, investigating this case—” Since Wayans was playing a character, he never asked Wade explicitly about whether the tradeoff was worth it. Instead, he would try to make things awkward by using heavy irony and sarcasm to point out that none of Wade’s inside legal baseball talk explains the affair, “I see it all happen, countless hours, and I need a foot rub, and, you know what I mean? She rubbed your foot like ‘here, let me give you a massage’ and all of a sudden we up on this desk. Man.”     Wade did not do much to extract himself from the awkwardness, “No. Not even close. Not even close. Not even close… so during the course of the investigation we would meet early mornings, weekends, spend full days –” Wayans pretended to understand, “How can you not hit that? How can you not? We spending that much time together, we doing everything, we might as well!” Later in their conversation, Wade would claim it is “a common misconception. She's not my boss, she's never been my boss… I was a contract attorney, she’s more analogous to a client to me.” That led Wayans to the following exchange, where the sexual irony appeared to fly right over Wade’s head: WAYANS: So you say she was a client? WADE: Yes. WAYANS: So, you serve her well. WADE: I did—I did my job. Let's talk about some of the successes I did while I was— WAYANS: I think we talked about successes. WADE: We didn't. We are talking about securing an indictment, talking about getting people to enter pleas. WAYANS: Right, enter pleas. Enter pleas, you gotta enter pleas. Wayans eventually got to the main point, “So let me ask you, when old girl was like ‘Hey, babe, you want to be in charge of this prosecution of the president of the United States who did this insurrection,’ did you think, like, this could get messy? Or you was like ‘no, I will be all right?’" Wade insisted, “We did not have that type of relationship at the outset, and we were interviewing other people for the position.” Wayans then did a couple of sex position poses on the couch to ask, “Did that position look like this? Or did that position look like this?” Towards the end, he again asked, “So, some people saying this sort of deal might have ruined the best chance to hold Trump accountable for trying to end democracy. Now, what would you say to all the haters out there who can't get laid?” Wade did not know why Wayans was so upset with him, “Well, I don't know what the haters are thinking, but what I will say is under my leadership, we successfully secured a valid legal indictment, the charging document.” With all of the bitter irony he could muster, Wayans again doom-mongered about the end of democracy, “All right, young black men need a role model, what's your advice to kids in the hood that's out there that want to grow up and have big dick potentially end democracy? That's some lethal shit if you ask me.” Wade, initially, could not control his laughter, and only after a cartoon technical difficulties interruption, did he declare, “I don’t know that I have advice for any young black men to have workplace romances. What I do have advice for young black men is simply this: you can do whatever you put your mind to.” Apparently, that includes getting kicked off one of the most important trials in American history over ethical concerns. Here is a transcript for the June 18 show: Comedy Central The Daily Show 6/18/2024 11:14 PM ET MARLON WAYANS: Here today I got my man Nathan Wade, looking smooth.  NATHAN WADE: I'll take that. WAYANS: What was your first thought when you had the affair with Fani become public between you and here? WADE: I don't label it an affair. WAYANS: Wifey or? WADE: D.A. Willis is a respectable mother, a brilliant legal mind. WAYANS: Right. WADE: We spent countless hours preparing this case, investigating this case— WAYANS: I see it all happen, countless hours, and I need a foot rub, and, you know what I mean? She rubbed your foot like “here, let me give you a massage” and all of a sudden we up on this desk. Man. WADE: No. Not even close. Not even close. Not even close. WAYANS: She liked it at you or you liked it at her? WADE: That's a great question, right, so during the course of the investigation we would meet early mornings, weekends, spend full days – WAYANS: How can you not hit that? How can you not? We spending that much time together, we doing everything, we might as well! WADE: Well, in terms of workplace romances, how many places have you worked? WAYANS: I probably worked like three or four places and everywhere I went it was a mess. So, she your boss? You are not indecent proposal – you on that Demi-- what's that white girl's name that married to the dude from Die Hard? WADE: So, that's a common misconception. WAYANS: Disclosure, you on that disclosure shit. WADE: No, that's a common misconception. She's not my boss, she's never been my boss. WAYANS: You weren’t HeToo-ed. WADE: Right. WAYANS: She ain’t HeToo you? WADE: No. I was a contract attorney, she’s more analogous to a client to me. WAYANS: So you say she was a client? WADE: Yes. WAYANS: So, you serve her well. WADE: I did—I did my job. Let's talk about some of the successes I did while I was— WAYANS: I think we talked about successes. WADE: We didn't. We are talking about securing an indictment, talking about getting people to enter pleas. WAYANS: Right, enter pleas. Enter pleas, you gotta enter pleas. WADE: Well, we’re talking about other jurisdictions even following suit. WAYANS: So let me ask you, when old girl was like "Hey, babe, you want to be in charge of this prosecution of the president of the United States who did this insurrection,’ did you think, like, this could get messy? Or you was like "no, I will be all right?" WADE: We did not have that type of relationship at the outset, and we were interviewing other people for the position. WAYANS: What position was it? WADE: It was the position of special prosecutor. WAYANS: Did that position look like this? Or did that position look like this? WADE: So, no. … WAYANS: So, some people saying this sort of deal might have ruined the best chance to hold Trump accountable for trying to end democracy. Now, what would you say to all the haters out there who can't get laid? WADE: Well, I don't know what the haters are thinking, but what I will say is under my leadership, we successfully secured a valid legal indictment, the charging document. WAYANS: All right, young black men need a role model, what's your advice to kids in the hood that's out there that want to grow up and have big dick potentially end democracy? That's some lethal shit if you ask me. WADE: We’re talking about – [laughter] Cut! [Cartoon Technical Difficulties Screen] I don’t know that I have advice for any young black men to have workplace romances. What I do have advice for young black men is simply this: you can do whatever you put your mind to.

Kevin O'Leary, entrepreneur and cohost of the show Shark Tank, scolded Gov. Gavin Newsom for what he called the destruction of California’s economy through a controversial minimum wage increase. During a Monday interview on Fox Business’s The Big Money Show, O'Leary asserted that Newsom has turned The Golden State into a “version of Venezuela” by crippling the restaurant industry with a targeted minimum wage hike. “I'm here in California shooting season 16 of Shark Tank [and] the casual dining has been decimated by a policy mistake on minimum wage,” O’Leary said, referring to Assembly Bill 1228, which mandates fast food restaurants to pay all employees $20 per hour. O’Leary’s remarks came during a discussion with Fox Business anchor Jackie DeAngelis about the impact of the Biden administration’s proposal to increase the corporate tax rate to 28% by 2025. “I think about the restaurant industry, already suffering, you’re seeing fast food chains, clothing stores and also laying off employees,” DeAngelis told O’Leary. “They’ve got higher cost,  they’re paying higher wages and then you see less foot traffic. That tells me that fundamentally things are slowing down. That's not the time you want to squeeze the businesses harder.” Referring to restaurants in California, O’Leary added, “They’re shutting down left and right. I mean, Gavin Newsom made a huge mistake I think he knows that knows that now. He's turning the state into a sort of version of Venezuela.” O’Leary argued that the minimum wage law is “killing business” beyond the restaurant industry. “There’s all kind of capital leaving [California] for more competitive states, he said. You see what’s going on in Tennessee, Florida, Texas.” While describing Newsom as a “nice guy,” O’Leary didn’t hold back his criticism of the governor’s policies. “He's a bad manager. He’s decimated this place. I’ve been coming here for 15 years. This is a shell of it used to be.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using MRC Free Speech America’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Four years after the Black Lives Matter Riots and just a couple of months after the pro-Hamas/anti-Semitic encampments on college campuses and the death threats to Congress over the possible ban of TikTok, ABC moderator Whoopi Goldberg took to Wednesday’s edition of The View to whine that young people supposedly don’t protest and “stand for stuff” like how she was “forced to do.” Their conversation was spurred on by former President Obama expressing that his daughters had no interest in getting into politics; a bit of news that gave The View the sads. “So, as funny as that is, it's also really sad. Does that mean that politics have gotten so nasty that young people don't want to go into it?” Goldberg lamented. “It is nasty. I miss Obama, though. I see him and I want him back,” co-host Joy Behar bemoaned. “That whole lie that went around that said Obama wasn’t born in this country. So, I don't think they want to subject their kids to such nonsense. I agree with that.” Staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) argued that it made sense that “a lot of black mothers, especially, would be nervous about their children getting into politics because of the racial bias that still exists in this country. The societal bias, the structural racism that still exists in this country…” “But you know, we need less influencers and more leaders. We do. We need fresh blood,” she proclaimed.     Possibly thinking of her own toxic opinions, Hostin added: “We need young people that are unafraid to give their unvarnished opinions and not as concerned about their brands and not as concerned about what other people will think…And stand on the right side of history for a change. And I’m so disappointed.” It was then that Goldberg inexplicably went off with her wild inaccuracy that young people supposedly didn’t protest things or took political action anymore: GOLDBERG: I think we have not taught them how to do that. We haven't -- HOSTIN: There's many, many people willing to do it. GOLDBERG: I have to tell you; we have not taught young people how to stand for stuff. They’re learning. HAINES: Yeah. GOLDBERG: But this is not something -- we were forced to do it because our brothers or sisters or uncles and cousins were thrown into wars. They were thrown into stuff.  Women wanted the opportunity to go to school. There were things we were fighting for. At no point did Goldberg explain what evidence she had that led her to that conclusion nor did she address how she would square her assertion with the recent campus protests against the Jews. But she did scold: “I think a lot of the problem is because people keep saying -- where are the grown-ups? Talking about us. And I say, we've done this. We've been doing it. We’re waiting for y'all to come.” The transcript is below. Click :expand" to read: ABC’s The View June 19, 2024 11:02:39 a.m. Eastern (…) WHOOPI GOLDBERG: So, as funny as that is, it's also really sad. SARA HAINES: Yeah. SUNNY HOSTIN: Yeah. GOLDBERG: Does that mean that politics have gotten so nasty that young people don't want to go into it? JOY BEHAR: It is nasty. I miss Obama, though. I see him and I want him back. HOSTIN: Yeah, he just makes you smile. BEHAR: I love him. He was such a good president. But I think, you know, the Kennedys have a legacy. You know, they have that whole generation of guys. GOLDBERG: Not anymore. BEHAR: Until look what happened with the latest RFK Jr., the poor guy has a worm in his brain. [Laughter] Which is a problem if you're going to run the country. [Laughter] But the Obamas -- and the Kennedys are subject to the same kind of vitriol that any other president was. But with the Obamas, on top of that, you have racism coming at them. And these kids remember when Melania and Trump said he was a birther. That whole lie that went around that said Obama wasn’t born in this country. So, I don't think they want to subject their kids to such nonsense. I agree with that. HOSTIN: And I think a lot of black mothers, especially, would be nervous about their children getting into politics because of the racial bias that still exists in this country. The societal bias, the structural racism that still exists in this country, even though people think that that's not true. But you know, we need less influencers and more leaders. We do. We need fresh blood. We need young people that are unafraid to give their unvarnished opinions and not as concerned about their brands and not as concerned about what other people will think. BEHAR: Or about getting reelected. HOSTIN: And getting reelected. And stand on the right side of history for a change. And I’m so disappointed. GOLDBERG: I think we have not taught them how to do that. We haven't -- HOSTIN: There's many, many people willing to do it. GOLDBERG: I have to tell you; we have not taught young people how to stand for stuff. They’re learning. HAINES: Yeah. GOLDBERG: But this is not something -- we were forced to do it because our brothers or sisters or uncles and cousins were thrown into wars. They were thrown into stuff.  Women wanted the opportunity to go to school. There were things we were fighting for. HAINES: Their fighting for things now. And their wages are being squashed. GOLDBERG: I don't know if that's true. I think lot of the problem is, because people keep saying -- where are the grown-ups? Talking about us. And I say, we've done this. We've been doing it. We’re waiting for y’all to come. (…)

Canada's federal police agency admitted that groups they have identified as "hate groups" have become increasingly racially diverse.In a 2024 report called "Hate Crimes and Incidents in Canada," the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (FBI equivalent) sought out to identify the source of hate crimes and explain the reasons behind them.It defined hate groups as any organization that can be characterized by its promotion of "a hate-based orientation or purpose."The report predominantly blamed populist politics for a rise in overall mean-spirited behavior, pinpointing 2016 as the first instance of a spike in hate crimes."The first pronounced spike in hate crimes began in 2016 and coincided with the rise of populist politics and inflammatory rhetoric directed toward immigrant, racialized, and religious minority groups," the report claimed.The report also blamed COVID-19 for "rising social polarization" and, alongside a rise in "populist politics," stated that "xenophobia and racist rhetoric" portrayed members of racialized and religious minorities as threats to community safety and national security.'The Canadian governments and its agencies can only pick on groups that don't have sway over political parties.'In attempt to answer why people join hate groups, the RCMP said it was because members seek a sense of identity, meaning, and personal significance. While the government report claimed that research has shown hate groups to be "overwhelmingly white and male," it also said in the same breath that the groups are increasingly diverse."People who join hate groups come from all socioeconomic backgrounds, professions, and, perhaps surprisingly, they appear to be increasingly racially/ethnically diverse."Independent Turkish-Canadian reporter Abdusselam Bezirgan told Blaze News the Canadian government typically labels any group that has grievances with the ruling party as a "hate group.""What RCMP classifies as hate groups are often composed of individuals who have natural grievances regarding the politics of the country which affects them negatively one way or the other. The common ground is that they're not politically correct and they arrive at conclusions based on what they believe to be the truth.""The Canadian governments and its agencies can only pick on groups that don't have sway over political parties," he continued. "Groups that do have influence over liberals or conservatives will never face any scrutiny including from the media, intelligence agencies, or the RCMP," Bezirgan added.The government report went on to state that "online hate speech" had a massive 600% surge between November 2015-2016, suggesting again that populist politics "normalized" incendiary online rhetoric.The report considered it difficult to claim how many hate groups actually exist in Canada, citing that they "start up, fracture and fold all the time." Instead, the report relied on outside research that supported its narrative.Using its selected sources, the RCMP estimated the existence of 70-300 hate groups, alleging a "general consensus" that hate groups were on the rise.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

An illegal alien with multiple arrests to his name and who has left and re-entered the U.S. more than a dozen times is accused of causing a crash in Colorado that left one person dead and two others injured.Just over a week ago, Ignacio Cruz-Mendoza, a 47-year-old Mexican national, was driving a semi-truck down southbound I-285, a two-lane highway in a mountainous area of Colorado about 30 miles west of Denver. Witnesses later claimed that he was racing along dangerously fast, perhaps reaching a top speed of 80 mph.'He may have lost his life that day, but I feel like I lost mine as well.'Around 5 p.m., Cruz-Mendoza allegedly attempted to pass several cars. In his haste, he apparently side-swiped the cars before losing control of the truck and rolling over, causing his haul of pipe and angle iron to come crashing down on five other vehicles.Two people were hurt during the crash, one of them seriously. Sadly, the crash also claimed the life of 64-year-old Scott Miller, a fellow truck driver and a beloved husband, father, and grandfather.I-285 had to be closed for over 12 hours as investigators processed the scene. Cruz-Mendoza claimed that the brakes on the truck had gone out, though skid-mark evidence suggested they were working to some degree.Cruz-Mendoza was arrested at the scene and initially charged with multiple felonies, including vehicular assault and vehicular homicide. However, the Jefferson County District Attorney's Office has since reduced those charges to one count of careless driving resulting in death and three counts of careless driving resulting in injury, all of which are misdemeanors. The DA's office claimed current evidence did not support the felony charges. Further charges may be added pending the outcome of the investigation from Colorado State Police. Cruz-Mendoza was assessed a bond of $50,000 and remains in custody at Jefferson County Jail. Online jail records list his race as white: Screenshot of Jefferson County Jail inmate recordThis arrest is hardly the first for Cruz-Mendoza. In fact, he became a familiar face to ICE after he was arrested in Oregon more than two decades ago on a charge related to drug trafficking. He also has at least one conviction for speeding and operating without lawfully required equipment.Since 2002, he has either been deported or returned to Mexico voluntarily at least 16 times, most recently on May 29. ICE has issued an immigration detainer against him in connection with the crash.KDVR claimed that Cruz-Mendoza will be represented by a public defender who does not comment on ongoing cases. His arraignment hearing is scheduled for July 31.At the time of the incident, Cruz-Mendoza had been working for Monique Trucking, though he apparently did not have a commercial driver's license. Monique Trucking also has a history of violations, 9NEWS reported. Cruz-Mendoza's truck was most recently inspected four years ago.Denver7 reached out to the company for comment but seemingly did not receive a response.Meanwhile, Miller's loved ones are devastated that the man suspected of killing him now faces reduced charges. "I just wanted to have the driver to have accountability for his actions," said Michelle Tusa, Miller's daughter. "He took my father’s life and he seriously injured someone else. And I want him to face what he did.""My husband and I have been together for 46 years," said Miller's widow, Deann Miller. "He may have lost his life that day, but I feel like I lost mine as well.'"The family hopes that Miller's death will be a warning to other truck drivers to maintain safe speeds and follow safety protocols, especially when driving through mountains. "It was of his utmost concern, the safety of the truck drivers that drive really heavy big rigs up in the mountains," Tusa said of her father."If his death is going to mean anything, it is going to mean people are more aware and that truckers as a profession are more careful."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Even after 40 years of doing stand-up comedy, “You never really knew [Jerry Seinfeld’s] political beliefs,” says Dave Rubin. However, that has since changed. After Hamas’ brutal attack on Israel last October, Jerry, who’s Jewish himself, traveled to Israel and “basically said ‘Jews have a right to defend themselves’” — a statement that has made him “public enemy number one for all these pro-Hamas people.” At a show in Sydney, Australia, last weekend, the comedian utterly destroyed a protester who started chanting, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” “We have a genius, ladies and gentlemen. He’s solved the Middle East. ... It’s the Jewish comedians. That’s who we have to get!” he quipped. The demonstrator continued his chant as security escorted him out, but Seinfeld wasn’t quite finished. “They're going to start punching you in about three seconds, so I would try and get all of your genius out so we can all learn from you. It’s a comedy show you moron. Get out of here.” When the chants didn’t stop, Seinfeld added, “You’re really influencing everyone here. We’re all on your side now because you’ve made your point so well. ... You’ve come to the right place for a political conversation.” “Tomorrow we will read in the paper, ‘Middle East 100% solved thanks to man at the Qudos Arena stopping Jew comedian’ ... and everyone in the Middle East went, ‘Oh my God, let’s just get along.”’ “You have to go 20,000 miles from the problem and screw up a comedian – that is how you solve world issues,” he jested. Dave, who’s long loved Jerry’s brilliance, applauds his willingness to call out the lunacy. “Why are you going to a Jerry Seinfeld stand-up concert and doing that?” he asks rhetorically, adding that the woke protesters “are trying to ruin everything” because “they think they own everything.” To see Jerry Seinfeld put a pro-Palestine protester to absolute shame, watch the clip below. Want more from Dave Rubin?To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

A chemical once commonplace in baby bottles was singled out for concern and investigations in the mid-2000s after it was linked to possible health risks. Selective bans and restrictions on the chemical Bisphenol A soon followed in a number of Western nations. The perception that sufficient action was ultimately taken largely put the controversy over BPA to bed, although scientists continued looking into BPA's effects on animals — as well as into the impact of its all-too-similar alternatives. Studies conducted at home and abroad in the years since have highlighted various links between BPA and infertility, obesity, cancer, poor fetal development, early onset puberty, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and other ailments. While there are outstanding concerns about BPA and its relatives, which are still used in rigid plastic consumer products, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration maintains — to the great chagrin of some scientists — that the chemical is safe "at current levels occurring in foods." Echoing American scientists ostensibly ignored by their regulator, a European health agency recently sounded the alarm, revealing that exposure is too high and that contrary to the suggestion of the FDA, BPA does pose a danger. Blaze News recently reached out to the European Food Safety Authority, the FDA, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences for insights into the current state of scientific knowledge about BPA, the selective reduction in the recommended tolerable daily intake, and possible outstanding risks to the general public. What is BPA? BPA is an industrial chemical that has been produced in massive quantities since the 1960s. An estimated 22 billion pounds of BPA are produced a year. BPA is frequently used as a structural component in clear plastic consumer products, including eye wear, cosmetics, clothing, tableware, thermal paper receipts, water bottles, water pipes, and in the epoxy resins used to line the insides of metal food cans. The BPA market reportedly accounted for $22.69 billion in 2022 and $23.52 billion last year. Concerns mounted earlier this century over the likelihood that when BPA leached into the food and drink it was supposed to help contain, it would adversely impact human beings' health, especially that of unborn babies and newborns. In addition to exposure via food, humans can also absorb BPA through the skin. BPA is a known endocrine disruptor, meaning that it can alter hormone activity thereby adversely impacting various biological processes regulated by the endocrine system, including those related to reproduction — at a time when fertility problems are on the rise. In its 2003-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicated there were detectable levels of the chemical — which mimics the effects of estrogen in the body — in 93% of over 2,500 urine samples from people over the age of six. Later studies highlighted the presence of BPA in the blood and tissues of adults and children alike, and in breast milk, amniotic fluid, and placental tissue. Protecting kids Around the mid-2000s, the controversy around BPA largely centered on its use in baby-related food delivery services and packaging. The U.S. was among the countries that responded to the outrage with investigations and partial bans. Minnesota passed the first selective state ban on BPA in 2009. Connecticut was reportedly next up, then a dozen more states adopted policies regulating the use of the chemical in consumer products. Lawmakers and consumer groups across the country leaned on companies to stop manufacturing baby bottles and toddler cups using the chemical ingredient. Companies like Playtex and Gerber obliged them in short order. Despite the FDA noting in an August 2008 draft report that BPA remained safe in food contact materials — a stance it maintains to this day — it was met with a citizen petition months later from the Natural Resources Defense Council requesting that the Commissioner of Food and Drugs issue a rule barring the use of BPA in human food and packaging and revoking regulations permitting the use of any food additive that might lead to BPA food contamination. The FDA effectively told the concerned citizens to pound sand and reiterated its commitment to continuing its investigations into the chemical's health effects. In an apparent act of appeasement, the FDA did, however, amend its food additive regulations, effective 2012, to no longer "provide for the use of polycarbonate (PC) resins in infant feeding bottles (baby bottles) and spill-proof cups ... because these uses have been abandoned [by manufacturers]" — not because of safety concerns. Responding to a petition from Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), the FDA amended its regulations in 2013 to no longer provide for the use of BPA-based epoxy resins in packaging for baby formula. During the uproar over BPA, other Western nations similarly took precautions even though the science was unsettled. Canada, for instance, which had been the first country to declare BPA a "dangerous substance," determined that while most citizens had low to very low exposure levels of BPA that ostensibly did not pose a health risk, "There was a potential concern for infants, which led to added protective measures." The northern nation ultimately made it illegal to manufacture, import, advertise, or sell polycarbonate baby bottles that contain BPA. In 2011, the European Union banned the use of BPA in baby bottles and toddler cups. Rat problems The European Chemicals Agency's Member State Committee unanimously agreed in 2017 that BPA-A is a "substance of very high concern because of its endocrine disrupting properties which cause probably serious effects to human health." In recent years, other agencies at home and abroad have similarly expressed concern about persisting threats posed by the profitable chemical. The FDA, however, maintains that "BPA is safe at the current levels occurring in foods," having apparently been unswayed by various recent damning studies, including those which revealed: Exposure to BPA and its alternatives can impair female rats' fertility and disrupts male rats' sperm production as well as the DNA in their spermatozoa. Bisephenol-exposed mice suffered accelerated mammary gland development during early puberty, which persisted into adulthood. BPA not only interferes with ovarian development but incurs ovarian dysfunction in mice. Additionally, "BPA at 5 mg/kg, 10 mg/kg, 20 mg/kg and 40 mg/kg significantly increased the abortion rate of the pregnant mice, and each dose of BPA significantly reduced the survival rate of the pups." BPA exposure in utero decreased testosterone concentration in male pups. BPA can "significantly increase the risk of both hormone-dependent and hormone-independent cancers," breast cancer in particular, which both the National Cancer Institute and the Institute of Medicine have recognized. In the face of continued disagreements stateside about BPA, the FDA, the NIEHS' National Toxicology Program, and other agencies collaborated on a multi-year rat model-based BPA research program called the "Consortium Linking Academic and Regulatory Insights on Bisphenol A Toxicity," or CLARITY-BPA. This multi-agency initiative published its draft core report in 2018 and then a compendium of findings in October 2021. Blaze News reached out to Dr. Brandy Beverly, a health scientist with the Office of Health Assessment credited with helping design and draft the final BPA report, for comment. A NIEHS spokesman responded and highlighted some interesting takeaways: "The core study showed no changes in brain tissue in rats. University researchers found some structural changes, and they observed alterations in the expression of estrogen and androgen receptors. They also discovered changes in the expression of genes involved in sexual differentiation and neuroendocrine function in the hypothalamus, hippocampus, and amygdala, and limited sex-specific effects on learning and memory, among other results." "Cancer rates in female rats increased following administration of the lowest BPA dose in the core study, but authors of that study concluded that was not due to the chemical because effects were not seen at higher doses. University scientists found that low-level exposure in rodents caused changes in mammary gland development that may contribute to increased cancer risk, whereas higher doses did not cause those changes." "Neither the core study nor the investigative research reported cancerous lesions in rodents following exposure to BPA. However, BPA did increase cancer following a later-life estrogen exposure simulating the aging human male, with the greatest effects observed at the per-day dose of 2.5 micrograms BPA per kilogram body weight. Also, evaluation of the developing male prostate and urethra showed a smaller urethra following exposure to low doses of BPA or ethinylestradiol, a synthetic estrogen." The spokesman noted that despite the "illuminating" collected findings, the authors of the multi-agency report "did not reach a consensus." While the FDA subsequently declared BPA "safe for the currently authorized uses in food containers and packaging," there was apparently a great deal of resistance to the regulator's framing. 'Their decisions rely on 4 incorrect assumptions.' According to a peer-reviewed 2020 review published in the journal Endocrinology, "A majority of the academic scientists that participated in the CLARITY-BPA study disagreed with the FDA's published conclusions." In the CLARITY-BPA's draft core study report, a "wide range of adverse effects was reported in both the toxicity and the mechanistic endpoints at the lowest dose tested (2.5 micrograms/kg/day), leading independent experts to call for the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) to be dropped 20 000-fold from the current outdated LOAEL of 50 000 micrograms/kg/day," said the review. "Despite criticism by members of the Endocrine Society that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s assumptions violate basic principles of endocrinology, the FDA rejected all low-dose data as not biologically plausible," said the 2020 study. 'The harmful effects from BPA can occur at minuscule levels.' Instead, the FDA doubled down on its longstanding position. "Their decisions rely on 4 incorrect assumptions: dose responses must be monotonic, there exists a threshold below which there are no effects, both sexes must respond similarly, and only toxicological guideline studies are valid," added the review. The review did not mince words, concluding that the "FDA has abrogated its responsibility to ensure the safety of food and food/beverage packaging in the US, and the FDA continues to allow industry to declare chemicals such as BPA to be safe." Dr. Linda Birnbaum, former director at NIEHS and NTP, said in a 2022 statement when petitioning the FDA to reconsider the safety of BPA in food packaging, "The scientific evidence is now more than enough to require strict limits on the use of BPA in packaging and plastics that come in contact with our food." Too much BPA The European Food Safety Authority, which admittedly applies different methods for quantifying risk in humans than some other major agencies, alternatively concluded last year that BPA is a health concern — not just for unborn babies and newborns, as long suspected — but for all age groups. It also lowered its estimated tolerable daily intake for BPA 20,000-fold — a decision celebrated by some scientists and criticized by others. Dr. Claude Lambré, chair of EFSA's Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids, indicated that upon reviewing over 800 BPA studies published since 2013, the panel "observed an increase in the percentage of a type of white blood cell, called T helper, in the spleen. They play a key role in our cellular immune mechanisms and an increase of this kind could lead to the development of allergic lung inflammation and autoimmune disorders." The potential for autoimmune disorders extra to possible consequences for the reproductive, developmental, and metabolic systems prompted the EFSA to greatly reduce the tolerable daily intake from the figure they set in 2015 and concluded that consumers with "both average and high exposure to BPA in all age groups exceeded the new TDI, indicating health concerns." "Based on all the new scientific evidence assessed, EFSA's experts established a TDI of 0.2 nanograms (0.2ng or 0.2 billionths of a gram) per kilogram of body weight per day (kg/bw/day), replacing the previous temporary level of 4 micrograms [4,000 nanograms] per kilogram of body weight per day," said the agency. A 2014 FDA hazard assessment indicated that the estimated dietary intake of BPA was 1.1 micrograms per kilogram of body weight a day for children under the age of 2 and 0.5 micrograms for those 2 and older. An EFSA spokesman clarified to Blaze News that the new TDI represents the amount "that can be ingested daily over a lifetime without presenting an appreciable health risk." "Exceedance of the Tolerable Daily Intake does not mean consumers face immediate harmful effects," said the spokesman. "Even in the cases where the exposure exceeds the TDI, not all individuals will necessarily develop adverse reactions over time, as is generally true for any chemical exposure. The probability that harmful effects on the immune system would develop over time can be influenced by several factors, including other stressors, genetics and nutrition.” The EFSA apparently takes "conservative exposure scenarios" to maximize protections for even the most sensitive and vulnerable consumers. 'Studies show BPA can be absorbed into skin in minutes.' While the EFSA now maintains the BPA is a health concern for people of all age groups, the spokesman informed Blaze News that the "population groups most exceeding the TDI are those with the lowest body weights, so they include infants, toddlers, and children." When asked whether the FDA should change its position on BPA, the spokesman underscored that while the two health agencies were in regular dialogue, they simply drew different conclusions. "Different scientists can have different views on methodologies and approaches," said the spokesman. "This is a normal part of the scientific process. This is how science moves forward and develops. Approaches may also differ according to the scope and objectives of different assessments. It is part of a broader conversation within the scientific community on how findings from intermediate endpoints in animals can be integrated into safety assessments in humans." Blaze News reached out to the FDA about its markedly different view but did not receive comment by deadline. Protections and protectors BPA is omnipresent, but there are both groups who continue to flag its presence in various consumer products and ways for people to reduce exposure. The Center for Environmental Health, a nonprofit watchdog that seeks to protect kids and families from toxic chemicals, is among the groups campaigning against the use of BPA in various products. In recent years, the CEH has noted the presence of high levels of BPA in various articles of polyester-based clothing with spandex, including socks, sports bras, and athletic shirts. The watchdog went a step further, sending legal notices to various companies, including Patagonia, Sketchers, Nike, Reebok, New Balance, and Activ Pro, noting that their clothing "could expose individuals up to 40 times the safe limit" of BPA, according to California law. On May 31, the CEH successfully struck a legally binding agreement with 30 companies including Hanes, Victoria's Secret & Co., Asics, and Dollar General, which will apparently reformulate their products accordingly. "Studies show BPA can be absorbed into skin in minutes. Bisphenols have no place in socks made for adults, children, or babies, whose body systems are only just developing," Shakoora Azimi-Gaylon, senior director of toxic exposure and pollution prevention at the CEH, said in a statement. The NIEHS has noted some ways to prevent or reduce exposure to BPA: Don't microwave polycarbonate plastic food containers, which can break down over time and at high temperatures. Reduce use of canned foods. When possible, opt for non-plastic containers (e.g., glass, porcelain, or steel), especially for hot foods. Check packaging to indicate it is BPA free. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!