A California Superior Court Judge recently ruled against the American Chemistry Council (ACC), which filed a suit to prevent the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) from listing Bisphenol-A (BPA) as a Proposition 65 reproductive toxicant. In the suit, ACC argued that there were flaws in both the science and procedures used by OEHHA to develop the initial BPA listing in 2013. For example, OEHHA relied entirely on animal exposure research studies to justify the BPA listing, and neglected human studies that found insufficient evidence of toxicity. OEHHA’s independent scientific advisory Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant (DART) Identification Committee reviewed all the evidence in 2009 and voted unanimously not to recommend that BPA be listed as a reproductive toxicant. The Court chose to ignore this finding, noting that other scientific panels had reached different conclusions and that OEHHA is not required to consider DARTIC’s recommendations. CLFP contends that OEHHA tends to select the scientific findings that support the ends that the agency wants to achieve.