The US Food and Drug Administration's apparent willingness to embrace the results of industry-funded studies on the safety of Bisphenol-A, or BPA, has opponents of the controversial chemical howling.

Outrage centers particularly on what is viewed as bias in the FDA's approach to investigating BPA. The agency reportedly has ignored a comparatively vast body of research suggesting the chemical is harmful, and instead has latched onto the positive conclusions of two reports that are neither scientifically sound nor objective, according to critics.

After the Vioxx debacle -- which reached a fever pitch in 2004, when Dr. David Graham, who was then Associate Director for Science and Medicine in FDA's Office of Drug Safety, castigated his agency for its irresponsible internal procedures -- Americans have come to believe, or at least hope, that lessons were learned and improvements made.

However, the FDA's allegiance with the chemical industry on BPA leads many to wonder whether Americans are still utterly defenseless when it comes to product safety.

Consumer Reports has tested several brands of baby bottles that are BPA-free, or contain negligible amounts of the chemical, and recommends that parents opt for these choices instead of bottles made from polycarbonates.

Canada has already decided to ban BPA in baby bottles.

California lawmakers are considering a similar ban.

The FDA may be well on its way to becoming irrelevant unless strong measures are taken to reinforce the public's trust in a watchdog agency that seems to have forgotten whom it's supposed to protect.

Please indicate whether your message is "public" or "private." Public messages may be posted on this site. Private messages will not be published.