A scientific advisory panel has determined that the Food and Drug Administration used flawed methods and ignored key facts in deciding that a chemical used to harden plastic in baby bottles is safe.

The panel included academic and government scientists. Its critique lambasted the regulatory agency for examining an insufficient number of baby formula samples in its study of bisphenol A (BPA) and focusing solely on mean BPA values without regard for the fact that some samples had very high BPA values.

The report also cites the FDA for failure to mention animal studies which have shown links between BPA and diabetes, prostate cancer and other medical conditions, as well as National Toxicology Program studies that suggest BPA might adversely affect brain development in infants.

Because the FDA did not account for such findings, it ended up recommending a “safe level” of BPA that may not be safe at all, the report concluded.

An FDA spokesperson seemed to accept some aspects of the critique. The “FDA agrees that due to the uncertainties raised in some studies relating to the potential effects of low doses of bisphenol-A that additional research would be valuable,” Judy Leon told the Washington Post.

The FDA has begun to carry out additional research on the matter. Meanwhile, John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, his colleague Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and the attorneys general in several states are on record saying the bottle makers ought to just get rid of the stuff right now.

Canada recently enacted such a ban, and some retailers now sell BPA-free formula bottles in response to consumer outcries. The trade group representing BPA manufacturers has indicated its constituents will comply with FDA regulations once they are promulgated.

For 20 years Burger King left China’s exploding fast food market to McDonald’s and Yum! Brands, which operates Pizza Hut and KFC. Burger King joined its rivals on the mainland in 2005, but as recently as this April, it had only 12 storefronts in China.

Now, the King wants in on China’s $29 billion fast-food market and who can blame them?

This summer Burger King announced plans to open 300 outlets in China over the next 5 years. That still places it a distant third behind KFC, with 2,200 outlets and McDonald’s with 1,000.

And there’s a lot of work to do. For example, Burger King must get up to speed on Chinese food preferences. Chinese consumers it turns out, prefer chicken over beef-which is more or less what’s inside its trademark Whopper (known locally as huangbao, or Emperor Burger).

Burger King can thank its larger rival for some pioneering work in this regard. McDonald’s spent a ton of Yuan over the last decade convincing Chinese consumers that there are health benefits associated with eating beef (we promise to reveal these benefits once we learn what they are).

Even after tweaking its menu, the King knows it needs a killer strategy to make up for lost time. Right now its plan is to target younger, independent-minded consumers that want to distinguish themselves from older family members who prefer the “traditional offerings” served at Micky-D’s and KFC.

Hmmm…that might work, but a Cantonese version of “hold the pickles hold the lettuce, we don’t let special orders upset us,” wouldn’t be a bad backup.

Several years ago, Vermont guitarist Diana Levine lost her arm and her livelihood to gangrene after a health care provider administered a nausea drug improperly. Levine argued in state court that drug maker Wyeth should have affixed stronger warnings to the nausea drug’s label. A jury awarded her $7 million in damages.

The US Supreme Court hears the appeal next week. Wyeth will argue that the Food and Drug Administration had approved the drug label and that decisions by federal regulators like the FDA should supersede state law on the matter of product safety. 

 “This case is worth tens of billions to the pharmaceutical industry,” Ms. Levine’s lawyer Richard Rubin told the Wall Street Journal.

The 2008 model of the Supreme Court is among the most pro-business in generations. Even Steven Breyer is on record as strongly supporting FDA primacy in similar situations.

But consumer advocates have reminded the Court that the FDA doesn’t always get things right when it comes to product safety. According to these groups, recent settlements against Eli Lilly (Zyprexa), Merck (Vioxx), and Wyeth itself (fen-phen) suggest that a patient’s right to sue-in state court if need be-may be the most effective means to fight against corporate shenanigans.

Wyeth v. Levine has drawn additional interest as a possible precedent for cases outside health care. What happens for example, when states set environmental or fuel efficiency standards that are tougher than those set by federal agencies? The case could also impact future product liability suits covering the gamut from autos to baby cribs.

Anybody got tickets?