We can’t seem to understand why any bill titled “food safety bill” would be so hard to pass.

We enjoy food, we need it to survive, and we want it to be safe. Is that really so much to ask?

Apparently, it is.

The food safety bill in the Senate proposes new authorities to the Food and Drug Administration and will mark the first serious reform of food safety laws in 70 years.

According to a Washington Post article, 76 million people are sickened by bad food in this country every year, 300,000 go to the hospital and 5,000 die.

So now that those numbers have scared you, you’re thinking, “Well what’s the hold-up? Let’s get this bill passed, and let’s get it passed quickly.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s decision is what’s stopping the bill.

She proposed that the bill include measures to ban a controversial chemical called bisphenol A, or BPA, from food packaging.

In the world of common sense, this seems perfectly reasonable, especially when you find out what BPA is and what it does to our bodies.

Unfortunately, common sense isn’t always a staple of American government.

Through poor animal testing, BPA has been linked to a whole mess of disorders, including cancer, obesity, brain disorders and behavior disorders, heart disease, and reproductive problems.

This gross chemical is found in certain plastics, but researchers worry about it being used in food and beverage packaging.

These aren’t empty scare tactics either.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have estimated BPA is in more than 93 percent of Americans’ urine, and since BPA is a synthetic form of estrogen, this is raising eyebrows and concerns about infant development.

This is the part where you shiver in fear.

Naturally, the big, bad food manufacturers and business interest groups promised to retract their support for the bill should it include a ban on BPA. We’re not surprised.

These are the same groups that will keep any chemical regulation reform from happening.

We hope they’re the first ones to get cancer as a direct result of BPA in the body. Are these lobbyists under the impression that they, and their families, are immune to dangerous chemicals in food? Or it is that they just don’t care?

These groups aren’t fooling anyone when they say it’s about economic growth, and that’s why the ban shouldn’t exist. We know it’s about money, money, money.

As last year’s health care debate showed, the best interests of Americans have been sold out to corporate interests for far too long.

The bill could easily be passed without the BPA ban, but we hope that it doesn’t in that case.

Framing this issue as Feinstein delaying the first food safety bill isn’t giving the full story.

The bill is needed, but so is Feinstein’s amendment. We hope despite pressures from other senators and food health groups, Feinstein will stick to her guns.

Without the BPA banning amendment, the bill’s purpose becomes moot.

It shouldn’t be passed simply so it can only do a certain amount of good. It should be passed once it has every measure that can ensure safety of our food.